^SPEECH 

V  ' 


AGAINST 

THE  REVOLUTIONARY  MOVEMENT  OF  THE 
ANTItSLAVERY  party. 


DELIVERED  IN  T1IE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY  1G,  IS 60. 


Mr.  CLIN  OMAN  said :  ‘ 

Mr.  President:  It  is  my  purpose  to  speak  to-day  of  the  condition  of  the  country,  as 
connected  with  agitation  of  the  slavery  question.  I  shall  do  this  with  perfect  frankness, 
and  with  no  reserve,  except  what  parliamentary  rules  and  Senatorial  courtesies  impose. 
By  such  a  course  only  can  the  real  nature  of  the  impending  evil  be  ascertained,  and  a 
remedy  suggested.  Having  carefully  studied  the  subject  during  the  greater  part  of  my 
political  life,  and  from  different  points  of  view,  I  intend  to  express  my  opinions  seriously, 
and  as  fully  as  the  occasion  seems  to  require. 

Before  speaking  directly  to  the  merits  of  the  subject,  I  shall  devote  a  few  minutes  to  a 
preliminary  question.  It  has  been  contended  that  the  Democratic  party  is  responsible 
for  the  anti-slavery  agitation  of  tire  North.  A  retrospect  into  the  past  will  vindicate  :’t 
most  triumphantly  from  the  charge.  The  course  of  the  old  Federal  party,  in  the  war  of 
1812,  had  brought  it  into  discredit  and  disgrace  with  the  American  people,  its  leaders, 
with  a  view  of  recovering  the  popular  favor,  and  through  it  the  control  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  seized  upon  the  occasion  of  the  application  of  Missouri  for  admission  into  the  Union, 
and,  by  appealing  to  the  anti-slavery  feeling  of  the  northern  States,  created  a  sectional 
party  powerful  enough  to  prevent,  for  a  time,  the  admission  of  the  State.  During  the 
struggle,  a  provision  was  adopted  that  slavery  should  never  exist  in  the  territory  west  of 
Missouri  and  north  of  the  line  of  latitude  of  30°  30'.  Though  this  arrangement  was  dis¬ 
tasteful  to  the  South,  and  by  many  regarded  as  dishonorable  aud  unconstitutional,  it  was 
acquiesced  in  for  the  sake  of  peace.  And  when,  in  1S45,  Texas  was  annexed  to  the 
Union,  by  the  Democratic  party  mainly,  this  Missouri  line  was  extended  through  it,  ai  1 
slavery,  which  legally  existed  in  every  part  of  that  State,  waif?  abolished  and  prohibited 
north  of  the  line. 

When,  subsequently,  territory  was  acquired  from  Mexico,  the  Democratic  party,  with 
but  few  exceptions,  attempted  to  apply  the  same  principles  to  it,  and  extend  the  liue  •  f 
30°  30'  through  it.  The  proposition  was  again  and  again  brought  forward  by  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  Senator  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Douglas)  and  others,  and  as  often  rejected  by  the 
combined  vote  of  the  entire  Whig  party  of  the  North,  and  a  portion  of  the  Democrats  of 
that  section.  After  years  of  fruitless  struggle  it  was  abandoned,  and  the  principle  of 
congressional  non-intervention  adopted  by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 

In  other  words,  it  was  then  established,  in  substance  and  effect,  that  the  people  of  the 
Territories,  free  from  all  congressional  legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  should  regu¬ 
late  it  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  as  interpreted  by  the  courts  of  the  country.  This  settlement,  like  the  proposition 
for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line,  was  resisted  by  the  great  body  of  the  northern 
Whigs,  who  were  for  the  Wilmot  proviso  and  against  the  extension  of  slavery  in  any 
mode.  It  was  also  opposed  by  the  southern  friends  of  the  Missouri  line ,  who  preferred 
that  system  to  congressional  non-intervention,  and  \vho  still  cherished  the  hope  that  it 


Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers. 


1 


2 

might  he  adopted.  In  the  final  struggle,  they  were  reduced  to  a  dozen  southern  Senators 
and  thirty  Representatives,  of  whom  I  was  one. 

I’Scall  the  attention  of  Senators  to  another  striking  fact  in  this  connection.  It  is  charged 
not  only  by  the  northern  Opposition,  but  also  by  the  southern  opponents  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party,  that  it  is  responsible  for  the  alleged  evjls  of  Congressional  non-intervention 
and  the  disturbances  of  so-called  “  squatter  sovereignty  ”  in  the  Territories.  I  affirm  that, 
in  1850,  when  this  system  was  adopted,  it  was  sustained  b}T  the  representatives  of  the 
southern  V*  higs  with  the  greatest  unanimity.  I  was  no  exception  to  this  remark,  for  I 
had  announced  already  my  separation  from  the  organization  of  the  Whig  party.  I  re¬ 
peat  that  the  southern  Opposition  of  that  day,  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Clay,  were  the  first 
portion  of  their  fellow-citizens  to  abandon  the  Missouri  line  and  support  the  principles  of 
non-intervention  by  Congress.  On  the  other  hand,  the  last  and  firmest  friends  of  the 
Missouri  line  were  those  represented  at  the  Nashville  convention — whose  ultimatum  it 
was — and  sucli  Senators  and^  Representatives  from  the  South  as  were  in  that  day  de¬ 
nounced  as  xdtras  and  fire-eaters,  because  of  their  not  adopting  the  principle  of  congres¬ 
sional  non-intervention  in  lieu  of  the  Missouri  line.  When  these  facts  are  remembered, 
will  the  present  southern  Opposition  and  its  organs  continue  to  assail  the  Democratic 
party  for  an  act  which  they  themselves  earnestly  and  unitedly  concurred  in?  Can  they 
take  the  ground  that,  it  was  right  to  abolish  the  Missouri  line,  in  order  that  free  States 
should  be  made  south  of  it,  but  that  it  should  not,  in  like  manner,  be  obliterated  to  place 
the  South  on  an  equal  footing  north  of  itjL  After  a  majority,  both  of  the  South  and  of 
the  Democratic  party,  had  adopted  the  principle  of  congressional  non-intervention,  we 
who  had  opposed  it  acquiesced,  and  the  Democratic  and  Whig  conventions  of  1852  both 
sanctioned  it.  » 

When  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  were  admitted,  the  Democratic  party 
applied  the  same  principle  to  them  ;  and.  in  so  doing,  found  it  necessary  to  repeal  the  old 
Missouri  restriction,  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  intervention  by  Congress  to  control 
in  any  way  the  inhabitants  of  those  Territories.  Were  they  not  committed  to  do  this,  in 
the  strongest  and  most  emphatic  terms,  by  their  platform  and  their  late  action  as  to  the 
Mexican  Territories,  while  the  Whig  or  Opposition  convention  had  professed,  in  its  plat¬ 
form,  to  have  acquiesced  in  the  same  principles?  But  it  is  -said  that  both  parties  had 
declared  themselves  opposed  to  a  further  agitation  of  the  slavery  question.  So  they  had; 
but  there  was  a  specific  pledge  in  favor  of  congressional  non-intervention  in  the  Territo¬ 
ries  ;  and  the  carrying  it  out  ought  to  have  produced  no  agitation  whatever,  and  would 
not,  in  a  healthy  state  of  public  opinion  in  the  North.  The  Democratic  party  could  not 
honorably  avoid  doing  what  it  did;  and  would  have  been  liable  to  the  charge,  had  it  failed 
to  do  this,  of  shifting  its  principles  from  time  to  time,  and  so  shaping  its  course  as  to  favor 
non-intervention  when  it  would  thereby  admit  free  States  into  the  Union,  and  of  going 
for  congressional  intervention,  on  the  other  hand,  when  it  might  thereby  prevent  the 
formation  of  a  slaveholding  State.  Had  it  failed  to  maintain  its  principles  on  this  occa¬ 
sion,  it  would  have  been  justly  exposed  to  this  charge.  Their  opponents  in  the  North, 
however,  on  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction,  raised,  at  once,  au  immense  clamor, 
showing  that  their  friendship  for  non-intervention  was  only  pretended,  and  that  they  had 
acquiesced  in  the  measures  of  1850  only  because  they  created  a  free  State  south  of  36° 
30',  and  did  not  intend  the  principles  to  be  applied  in  a  case  in  which,  by  any  possibility, 
the  South  might  carry  its  institutions  north  of  this  line.  We  all  know  that,  prior  to  1854, 
they  as  regularly  and  vehemently  denounced  the  Missouri  compromise  as  they  have  since 
done  the  Kansas  iniquity ;  but  as  soon  as  it  was  proposed  to  repeal  this  restriction  to 
cany  out  the  principle  of  congressional  i 
advocates  of  this  same  Missouri  line^and 
they  showed  themselves  to  ne  Free-Soile 
share  in  the  public  territory  of  the  Union.  While  the  Kansas  bill  was  pending,  they 
threatened  to  hire  men  to  occupy  that  Territory;  and  did,  in  fact,  send  bodies  of  armed 
ruffians  to  hold  it  by  force,  constituting,  as  the  Senator  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Douglas)  said,  a 
,  military  occupation.  This  hiovement  provoked  retaliation  ;  and  the  strife  thus  occasioned 
’  was  referred  to  by  them  as  evidence  against  the  policy  of  non-intervention.  By  the 
same  effort  on  their  part,  they  could  have  created  disorders  in  any  State  of  the  Union, 
and  might,  with  as  much  justice,  have  attempted  to  discredit  the  principle  of  State  sov¬ 
ereignty.  In  fact,  they  refer  to  the  late  invasion  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  by  some  of 
their  employes,  as  an  argument  against  the  state  of  societ}7  prevailing  iu  the  South. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  however,  that  in  consequence  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
restriction,  true  and  patriotic  men  were  defeated  in  the  North  by  Free-Soilers  and  Aboli¬ 
tionists.  When  the  Democratic  party  had  the  manliness  and  the  statesmanship  to  reform 
the  currency  system  in  part  by  the  adoption  of  the  sub:treasury  plan,  it  sustained  severe 
losses  for  a  time.  In  the  more  arduous  undertaking  of  placing  the  slavery  question  on  a 
permanent  and  solid  basis,  with  reference  to  the  action  of  the  Federal  Government,  it  has 
had  to  encounter,  perhaps,  greater  difficulties.  I  am  not  sure,  however,  that  it  would 
have  been  as  much  weakened,  but  for  accidental  circumstances  which  it  could  not  fore- 


-intervention,  they  suddenly  became  the  warm 
deplored  its  removal.  From  the  first  to  the  last, 
rs.  and  determined  to  exclude  the  South  from  all 


3 


see.  During  the  excitement  arising  out  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction,  there 
occurred  that  singular  organization  called  the  American  party,  which  carrh  d  a  majority 
of  almost  every  one  of  the  northern  States.  It  severed,  during  this  period  of  excitement, 
and  permanently  separated  from  the  Democratic  party,  many  who  would  otherwise  have 
returned  to  it.  On  its  sudden  collapse,,  most  of  its  members  in  the  free  States  united  with 
a  few  outside  Abolitionists  and  formed  the  present  Black  Republican  party.  But  for 
these  occurrences,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  Democratic  party  would  have,  ere  tins,  re¬ 
covered  its  ascendency  in  several  of  the  northern  States. 

But  again,  Mr.  President,  when,  in  the  year  1857,  Robert  J.  Walker  was  made  Governor 
of  Kansas,  he  publicly  declared  that  the  climate  of  that  Territory  fitted  it  only  to  be  a 
free  State  ;  and  also  assured  the  people  that  the  whole  constitution  should  be  submitted 
to  them.  This  position  was  condemned  generally,  in  the  South,  as  amounting  to  Execu¬ 
tive  interference,  or  intervention  with  the  right  of  the  citizens  of  the  Territory  to  decide 
these  questions  for  themselves.  By  way  of  defence  for  Governor  Walker,  it  was  said  that 
a  number  of  southern  men  had  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  a  free  State.  Every 
one  saw,  however,  that  if  Governor  Walker  had  taken  the  other  side,  he  might,  with  even 
more  plausibility,  have  declared  that  Kansas  ought  to  be  a  slaveholding  State,  because  it 
was  on  the  same  parallel  of  latitude  with  Missouri,  Kentucky,  Virginia,  Maryland,  and 
Delaware,  all  of  which  were  slaveholding  States;  and  this  position  of  his  might  have 
been  fortified  by  any  number  of  declarations  of  prominent  Free-Soilers  and  Abolitionists, 
to  the  effect  that,  under  the  Kansas  act,  that  Territory  would  inevitably  be  a  slavehold¬ 
ing  State.  The  entire  South,  almost,  condemned  his  position,  therefore,  as  unfair,  and  an 
unjust  exercise  of  Executive  influence  in  the  Territory.  It  so  happened,  however,  that, 
for  months,  the  paper  at  the  seat  of  Government,  and  others  supposed  to  represent  the 
views  of  the  President,  in  the  strongest  and  most  emphatic  terms,  the  position  of  Governor 
Walker.  Almost  the  entire  Democracy  of  the  free  States,  therefore,  took  this  ground  in 
support  of  what  they  understood  to  be  the  views  of  the  Administration,  and  assured  their 
fellow-citizens  that' the  people  of  Kansas  were  to  have  the  privilege  of  voting  on  the 
whole  constitution  of  the  State. 

But,  towards  the  close  of  that  year,  the  convention  of  the  Territory  decided  to  submit 
only  tlie  slavery  clause  to  the  voters  generally.  The  President,  therefore,  recommended 
the  admission  of  the  State  under  the  constitution  so  adopted.  That  tins  recommendation 
of  his  was  right,  1  never  doubted;  because  I  think  it  Las  been  fully  settled  by  the  usages 
of  the  States,  that  their  conventions  may  submit  or  not,  as  they  choose,  either  the  whole 
or  a  part  of  their  constitutions  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  Nevertheless,  this  position  being 
inconsistent  with  that  which  had  been  so  generally  taken  in  the  North,  many  men  who 
zealously  sustained  it  were  afterwards  defeated  at  home  because  of  their  party  having 
been  previously  committed  to  a  different  line  of  policy.  I  know  that  many  southern  m<  a 
who  had  no  doubt  that  the  action  of  the  Kansas  convention  was  theoretically,  and  as  a 
matter  of  constitutional  law,  right,  nevertheless  regretted  that  action,  because  it  had  the 
appearance  of  seeking  to  avoid  an  opportunity  for  a  fair  expression  of  fhe  popular  will. 
While  we  held  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  action  of  the  Territory  in 
Ibis  respect,  yet  we  felt  that  the  issue  wus  one  which  was  injuring  our  friends  in  the 
Nofth,  and  could  not  possibly  benefit  us.  If  there  ever  had  been  any  chance  of  its  be¬ 
coming  a  slave  State  in  fact,  the  course  of  Governor  Walker  had  already  cut  that  off  by 
carrying  over  all  the  officials  and  their  influence  in  the  Territory  to  the  side  of  the  Free- 
State  party.  With  no  purpose  to  cast  censure  on  any  one,  I  nevertheless  frankly  refer  to 
this  as  a  circumstance  for  which  the  Democratic  party,  as  a  whole,  are  not  justly  respon¬ 
sible,  but  which  aided  the  anti-slavery  party,  as  at  present  organized.  On  a  survey  of 
the  entire  ground,  I  maintain  that  it  will  appear  that  the  action  of  the  Democratic  party 
for  the  last  fifteen  years  on  the  slavery  question,  has  been  wise,  patriotic,  and  statesman¬ 
like. 

I  proceed,  however,  to  the  consideration  of  the  great  question  before  the  country.  Im¬ 
mediately  after  the  presidential  election  in  1856,  I  met  the  veteran  Secretary  of  State, 
then  a  Senator  from  Michigan,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  in  reply  to  an’inquiry  as 
to  how  he  was,  he  answered :  “  Well  in  health,  hut  depressed  in  spirits.  Sir,”  said  he, 
“I  formerly  thought  that  the  Union  would  never  be  dissolved;  but  I  am  now  not  with¬ 
out  painful  apprehensions  of  a  different  result.  They  say  that  the  excitement  in  the 
North  lias  grown  out  of  the  Kansas  bill.  A  hundred  Kansas  bills  would  mil  have  pro¬ 
duced  this  result.  These  people  mean  to  abolish  slavery  in  your  section.  You  may  think 
that  they  are  not.  fanatics;  but  the  misfortune  is  that  they  are.  You  will  gain  nothing 
by  making  to  them  concessions;  you  cannot  thereby  help  us;  but  you  will  ruin  your¬ 
selves.  By  standing  firm,  you  can  at  least  protect  yourselves.” 

His  words  made  the  deeper  impression  upon  me  because  they  were  in  accordance  with 
my  own  settled,  convictions.  Blit  now  the  evil  has  attained  such  alarming  dimensions 
that  it  demands  consideration.  When  a  dark  and  rapidly  advancing  cloud  has  already 
covered  half  the  heavens,  and  the  mutterings  of  the  distant  thunder  and  the  wailings  of 
the  coming  storm  are  loudly  heard,  none  but  a  false  sentinel  will  proclaim  a  calm.  Eiri- 


4 


* 


nently  futile,  too,  and  mischievous,  are  declarations  of  southern  men  against  agitation 
and  in  favor  of  union  and  harmony.  When  a  man  is  threatened  with  violence,  will  he 
stay  the  hand  of  the  assailant  by  proclaiming  his  love  of  peace?  When  a  country  is  in¬ 
vaded  by  a  public  enemy,  can  the  inhabitants  protect  themselves  by  passing  resolutions 
in  favor  of  peace  and  harmony?  All  the  world  regards  such  things  as  evidence  of  weak¬ 
ness  or  cowardice,  and  as  only  calculated  to  stimulate  the  invaders.  When  Philip  of 
Macedon  was  threatening  Greece,  his  hired  partisans  recommended  repose  and  quiet,  and 
denounced  Demosthenes  as  a-political  agitator.  It  was  in  the  midst  of  rnen  who  were 
crying  out  “peace!  peace!  ”  that  Patrick  Henry  thundered  that  there  was  “no  peace  !  ” 
Jf  the  Abolitionist  in  the  North  could  be  induced  to  abandon  agitation  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  it  would  be  well;  but  they  reject  with  derision  the  suggestion,  and  become  only 
more  insolent  as  southern  men  cry  out  the  louder  for  quiet  and  union. 

When,  some  twenty-five  years  ago,  the  abolition  society  at  Boston,  under  the  lead  and 
guidance  of  a  British  subject,  attracted  public  attention,  though  it,  declared  that  its  pur¬ 
poses  were  merely  peaceful,  and  intended  to  persuade  men  to  liberate  the  slaves,  yet  so 
insignificant  in  numbers  was  it,  that  the  candidate  Tor  Congress  in  that  district  refused  to 
reply  to  its  interrogatories,  or  to  gi  ve  any  pledges  as  to  his  course  on  the  subject  of  slave¬ 
ry.  For  this  he  was  complimented  by  Harrison  Gray  Otis,  who,  nevertheless,  said  with 
prophetic  sagacity : 

“And  can  you  doubt,  fellow-citizens,  that  these  associations  will  act  together  for  political  purposes?  Is 
it  in  human  nature  for  such  combinations  to  forbear?  If,  then,  their  numbers  should  be  augmented,  and 
die  success  they  anticipate  realized  in  making  proselytes,  how  soon  might  you  see  a  majority  in  Congress 
returned  under  the  influence  of  the  associations?  And  how  long  afterwards  would  this  Union  last?” 

Though  few  in  numbers,  the  Abolitionists  wrent  resolutely  and  actively  to  work. 

There  was  a  strong  feeling  in  favor  of  liberty  pervading  the  public  mind  generally, 
while  its  attention  had  never  been  called  to  the  specific  differences— physical,  mental,  and 
moral — existing  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro.  The  point  of  operations  selected 
was  one  remote  from  negro  slavery,  where  the  people  were  ignorant  of  its  actual  features, 
and  thus  fitted  more  easily  to  be  imposed  upon.  In  that  vicinity,  too,  were  the  remains 
of  old  prejudices  against  the  southern  section  of  the  Union.  The  effort  of  the  Abolition¬ 
ists  was  directed  to  the  corrupting  of  knowledge  at  its  fountain  beads,  by  the  diffusion  of 
publications  directed  to  that  end.  Its  first  fruits  were  seen  in  its  influences  on  women, 
preachers,  teachers,  and  professors,  persons  of  lively  sensibilities  generally,  not  so  much 
accustomed  to  deal  with  matters  of  fact,  more  easi^  deluded  by  cunningly-devised  soph¬ 
isms,  and  more  frequently  acting  from  the  influence  of  feelings.  Soon  abolition  sentiments 
appeared  in  books  of  education  ;  got  possession  of  schools,  colleges,  and  churches.  As  its 
powers  increased,  its  efforts  weie  multiplied,  until  it  covered  the  land  with  its  publica¬ 
tions.  Some  twelve  months  ago,  it  was  stated  in  the  newspapers  that  one  of  the  anti¬ 
slavery  organizations  had  resolved  to  circulate,  during  the  following  year,  in  the  State  of 
Xew  York,  one  million  of  its  tracts.  Can  such  an  amount  of  printed  matter  as  this,  con¬ 
sisting,  as  it  does,  of  ingeniously  written  misrepresentations  and  falsehoods,  fail  to  pro¬ 
duce  some  effect?  Remember  that  this  is  repeated  from. year  to  year,  and  aided  by  hired 
and  voluntary  lecturers,  speakers,  and  preachers.  Abolitionism,  to  a  great  extent,  per¬ 
vades  the  literature  of  the  free  States.  So  strong  is  the  feeling  against  slavery  there,  that 
the  writers  of  novels  and  plays,  to  secure  the  public  patronage,  exercise  their  wits  in 
imagining  all  that  can  be  conceived  as  worst  in  human  nature,  and  represent  it  as  a  true 
type  of  the  state  of  society  in  the  South.  The  bulk  of  the  newspaper  prt*ss,  too,  in  the 
North,  is  anti-slavery.  Such  is  the  character  of  the  entire  press  of  the  dominant  party 
there,  and  of  a  large  portion  of  the  neutral  and  religious  papers;  while  a  part  even  of  the 
minority,  or  Democratic  press,  avoids  the  subject  as  much  as  possible,  instead  of  attempt¬ 
ing  to  stem  the  current.  Though  northern  city  papers  are  much  read  in  the  South,  on 
the  contrary,  our  papers  have  little  or  no  circulation  in  the  North.  If  they  had,  the 
efforts  of  the  anti-slavery  party  would,  to  some  extent,  be  counteracted.  The  cities  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  for  example,  are  not  abolitionized ;  and  this  is  attributed, 
by  some,  to  the  fact  that  they  are  engaged  largely  in  southern  trade.  But  the  mechan¬ 
ics  of  Massachusetts  are  just  as  much  interested,  and  yet  they  are  intensely  anti-slavery 
in  their  feelings.  The  true  solution,  I  think,  will  be  found  in  the  fact  that  these  cities 
are  the  resort  of  so  many  southerners;  that  our  state  of  society  is  thereby  better  under¬ 
stood,  and  cannot  be  so  successfully  defamed.  The  same  reason  applies  to  the  free  States  on 
the  borders  of  the  slaveholding  country.  It  is  not,  as  the  Abolitionists  allege,  that  their 
consciences  are  so  much  blunted  that  they  cannot  appreciate  the  evils  of  slavery;  but 
simpl}*  because  they  do  understand  it,  that  they  cannot  be  imposed  upon  by  the  falsehoods 
of  the  anti-slavery  writers.  In  addition  to  this  reason,  the  western 'States  have  a  large 
influx  of  southern  emigrants.  While  Vermont  is  intensely  abolitionized.  New  Hampshire, 
adjoining  it,  is  less  so.  This  may  be  accounted  for  from  the  fact  that  New  Hampshire 
was  originally  strongly  Democratic,  and  its  press  resisted,  therefore,  to  some  extent,  the 
statements  of  the  Abolitionists.  Had  not  New  Hampshire  been  a  small  State  and  sur- 
lounded  with  adverse  influences,  she  would  probably  not  have  been  overpowered. 


5 


The  anti-slavery  movement  has  gone  on  with  increasing  strength,  until  it  has  educated 
a  large  portion  of  the  northern  people  to  entertain  feelings  of  hostility  to  slavery  and  the 
southern  States.  The  movement  has  progressed  independently  of  political  occurrences, 
but  it  has  occasionally  been  accelerated  or  retarded  by  them.  For  example:  i:i  1850  it 
was  weakened  somewhat,  partly  by  the  great  discussion  at  that  time,  which  enlightened 
somewhat  the  popular  mind,  and  also  by  the  peculiar  character  of  the  legislation  of  Ihe 
period.  California  was  admitted  as  a  free  State,  with  boundaries  reaching  far  south  of 
the  Missouri  line,  and  giving  the  North  the  majority  in  this  body;  while  the  principle  of 
non-intervention  applied  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico  was  regarded  as  a  fruitless  abstraction, 
the  general  opinion  prevailing  that,  to  use  the  words  of  Mr.  Webster,  the  law  of  God  had 
excluded  slavery  from  them.  As  to  the  fugitive  slave  law,  it  was  seen  that  it  could  prac¬ 
tical!}',  like  its  predecessor,  the  act  of  1793,  be  rendered  a  nullity  by  State  action  and 
individual  resistance.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
restriction  in  1854  produced  the  present  anti-slavery  organization.  In  1847  and  1S48  the 
House  of  Representatives,  by  large  majorities,  repeatedly  passed  the  Wilmol  prou'so  ;  and 
this  was  understood  to  have  been  done  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  their  constituents. 
Prior  to  1850,  most  of  the  churches  had  been  divided  by  this  issue. 

From  year  to  year  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  acquired  more  and  more  political  influence  ; 
and  in  1848  it,  took  possession  of  the  greater  portion  of  the  Whig  party  in  the  free  States. 
No  one  was  so  influential  in  effecting  this  result  as  the  Senator  from  New  York.  In  a  % 
speech  delivered  during  that  year  in  Ohio,  the  object,  in  part,  of  which  was  to  induce 
the  anti-slavery  men  to  join  the  Whig  party  rather  than  the  Buffalo-platform  Free-Soilers, 
he  uses  such  expressions  as  these.  1  call  the  attention  of  Senators  particularly  to  them, 
beeaxise  1  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  them  again  presently: 

“The  party  of  freedom  seeks  complete  and  universal  emancipation.”  *  *  *  * 

“Slavery  is  the  sin  of  not  some  of  the  States  only,  but  of  them  all ;  of  not  one  nation  only,  but  of  all 
nations.  It  perverted  and  corrupted  the  moral  sense  of  mankind  deeply  and  universally,  and  this  corrup¬ 
tion  became  a  universal  habit.  Habits  of  thought  become  fixed  principles.  No  American  State  has  yet 
delivered  itself  entirely  from  these  habits.  We,  in  New  York,  are  guilty  of  slavery  still  by  withholding 
the  right  of  suffrage  from  the  race  we  have  emancipated.  You,  in  Ohio,  are  guilty  in  the  same  way  by  a 
system  of  black  laws  still  more  aristocratic  and  odious.  It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  that  five  slaves  shall  count  equal  to  three  freemen  as  a  basis  of  representation  ;  and  itis  written  also, 
in  violation  of  Divine  law,  that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave  who  takes  refuge  at  our  fireside  from 
his  relentless  pursuer.  You  blush  not  at  these  things,  because  they  have  become  as  familiar  as  household 
words;  and  your  pretended  Free-Soii  allies  claim  peculiar  merit  for  maintaining  these  miscalled  guaran¬ 
tees  of  slavery  which  they  find  in  the  national  compact.  Does  not  all  this  prove  that  the  Whig  party  have 
kept  up  with  the  spirit  of  the  age?  that  it  is  as  true  and  faithful  to  human  freedom  as  the  inert  conscience 
of  the  American  people  will  permit  it  to  be?  What,  then,  you  say,  can  nothing  be  done  for  freedom 
because  the  public  conscience  remains  inert?  Yes,  much  can  be  done,  everything  can  be  done.  Slavery 
can  be  limited  to  its  present  bounds.  It  can  be  ameliorated.  It  can  be,  aRd  must  be  abolished,  and  you 
and  I  can  and  must  do  it.  The  task  is  simple  and  easy,  as  its  consummation  will  be  beneficent  and  its 
rewards  glorious.  It  requires  only  to  follow  this  simple  rule  of  action  :  To  do  everywhere  and  on  every 
occasion  what  we  can,  and  not  to  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  what  we  can  at  any  time,  because  at  that  precise 
time  and  on  that  particular  occasion  we  cannot  do  more. 

“  Circumstances  determine  possibilities.”  *  ******* 

“But  we  must  begin  deeper  and  lower  than  the  composition  and  combination  of  factions  or  parties, 
wherein  the  strength  and  security  of  slavery  lie.  You  answer  that  it  lies  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  slaveholding  States.  Not  at  all.  It  is  in  the  erroneous  sentiment 
of  the  American  people. ,  Constitutions  and  laws  can  no  more  rise  above  the  virtue  of  the  people  than  the 
limpid  stream  can  climb  above  the  native  spring.  Inculcate  the  love  of  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of 
man  under  the  paternal  roof ;  see  to  it  that  they  are  taught  in  the  schools  and  in  the  churches ;  reform  your 
own  code;  extend  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  fugitive  who  lays  his  weary  limbs  at  your  door,  and  defend  him 
as  you  would  your  paternal  gods  ;  correct  your  own  error,  that  slavery  has  any  constitutional  guarantee 
which  may  not  be  released,  and  ought  not  to  be  relinquished.” 

**********  *  * 

“Whenever  the  public  mind  shall  will  the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  way  will  open  for  it. 

“  I  know  that  you  will  tell  me  this  is  all  too  slow.  Well,  then,  go  faster  if  you  can.  and  I  will  go  with 
you;  but,  remember  the  instructive  lesson  that  was  taught  in  the  words,  ‘these  things  ought  ye  to  have 
done,  and  not  to  have  left  the  others  undone.’  ” 

Such  efforts  as  tins  were  persevered  in  from  time  to  time.  In  1850  lie  made  tliat 
speech  in  which  he  proclaimed  that  there  was  a  “higher  law’’  than  the  Constitution,  for 
which  he  received  the  emphatic  denunciation  of  Mr.  Clay.  TTis  subsequent  efforts  have 
been  in  this  same  line ;  and  at  Rochester  more  recently  he  endeavored  to  render  the 
slaveholders  of  the  South  as  odious  as  possible,  and  declared  that  there  was  an  “irrepres¬ 
sible  conflict”  between  the  free  and  the  elaveholding  States.  To  stimulate  the  qorthern 
people  to  attack  us,  he  affirmed  that  unless  they  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  entire 
South,  we  would  extend  slavery  over  all  the  northern  States.  In  substance,  he  says,  to 
protect  themselves  they  must  destroy  ottr  social  and  political  system.  When  a  man  says 
that  there  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  him  and  me,  and  that  my  head  or  his  must 
fall,  he  proclaims  himself  my  deadliest  enemy.  It  avails  nothing  if  he  even  adds  that  he 
intends  to  act  quietly  and  legally,  but  that  my  head  must  fall  to  save  his  own.  In  the 
present  instance,  the  Senator  says  that  it  is  for  the  South  to  decide  whether  its  system  of 
society  shall  be  destroyed  peaceably  or  by  “violence.”  lie  is  benevolent  enough  to  say, 
that  if  we  will  submit,  the  work  shall  be  clone  for  us  quietly  and  peaceably.  By  his  ef¬ 
forts  and  those  of  others,  the  bulk  of  the  old  Whig  party  was  abolitionized,  and  its  mem- 


6 


"here,  witTi  the  aid  of  accessions  from  the  Democratic  rants  and  Abolition  societies,  have 
constituted  that  political  organization  which  to-day  threatens  the  existence  of  the  Re¬ 
public.  It  claims  for  itself  the  name  of  Republican  party,  and  by  its  opponents  is  desig¬ 
nated  as  the  Black  Repblican  party.  The  latter  designation  is  proper  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  old  Republican  party,  whose  “image  and  superscription”  it  seeks  to  counter¬ 
feit;  and  also  because  its  efforts  are  entirely  directed  to  advance  the  black  or  negro 
race. 

What  are  the  principles  of  this  party,  as  indicated  by  its  declarations  and  its  acts?  It 
has  but  a  single  principle,  and  that  is  hostility  to  negro  slavery  in  the  United  States. 
Some  of  its  members  have  called  it  a  party  for  human  freedom;  but  this  is  a  mistake; 
for  though  there  are  in  the  state  of  slavery  in  different,  parts  of  the  world,  men  of  all 
races,  yet  it  has  manifested  no  sympathy  for  any  but  the  negro;  and  even  to  negro  sla¬ 
very,  it  seems  indifferent  outside  of  the  United  States.  I  maintain  it  has  no  principle 
whatever,  but  hostility  to  negro  slavery  in  the  United  States.  A  man  might  be  for  or 
against  the  tariff,  the  bank,  the  land  distribution,  or  internal  improvements;  he  might 
be  a  Protestant  or  Catholic,  a  Christian  or  infidel;  but  if  he  was,  only  actuated  by  an 
intense  feeling  of  hostility  to  negro  slavery,  or,  as  that  is  interwoven  with  the  social  sys¬ 
tem  of  the  South,  if  it  were  only  known  that  he  was  anxious  that  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  should  exercise  all  its  powers  for  the  destruction  of  the  southern  States,  that  man 
would  have  been  accepted  as  a  good  member  of  the  Black  Republican  party. 

But  while  all  the  members  of  the  party  are  actuated  by  tins  principle  or  feeling,  they 
differ  as  to  the  particular  steps  or  measure  to  be  taken.  The  most  moderate  of  them 
say  they  are  merely  opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  therefore  they  are  for  pro¬ 
hibiting  it  in  the  Territories,  and  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any  other  slaveholding 
States.  The  Senator  from  Vermont  (Mr.  Collamer)  said  not  long  since  that  tiffs  was  his 
position,  that  he  was  for  confining  slavery  to  its  present  limits,  so  that  in  time  it  might 
cease  to  be  profitable,  and  in  that  way  be  extinguished.  As  this  position  is  taken  by 
many  men  who  claim  to  be  moderate  and  conservative  in  their  views,  let  us  examine  it 
for  a  few  moments.  They  say  that  if  slavery  be  confined  to  its  present  limits,  the  slaves 
will  increase  in  numbers  to  that  extent  that  slave  labor  will  in  time  be  so  abundant  that 
the  supply  will  exceed  the  demand;  and  that  the  owners  will,  from  choice,  set  them  free 
rather  than  be  at  the  expense  of  maintaining  them  for  their  labor.  Let  it  be  assumed 
for  illustration  that  it  costs  ten  cents  to  feed  and  clothe  a  slave;  then  if,  owing  to  the 
great  number  of  slaves  who  exist  in  the  Territory,  their  labor  would  be  worth  less  than 
ten  cents  per  day,  undoubtedly  it  would  be  an  advantage  for  the  owners  to  liberate 
them.  But  remember  that  when  the  labor  of  a  negro  should  he  worth  only  ten  cents, 
that  of  the  white  man  would  likewise  come  down  to  this  price.  The  result,  therefore, 
is,  that  population  is  to  be  crowded  in  the  South  to  that  extent  that  every  laborer  is  to 
be  reduced  to  the  starving  point,  as  it  was  in  Ireland  during  the  times  of  the  famine, 
l^ow,  I  would  ask  the  Senator  from  Vermont  this  question  in  all  candor:  if  a  system  was 
proposed  to  be  instituted  by  which  his  constituents  were  to  be  reduced  to  the  starving 
point,  and  thus  crushed,  Avould  he  counsel  them  to  await  such  a  result?  or  would  he  not 
advise  them  to  stand  from  under  before  they  were  destroyed?  As  there  are  already 
four  million  slaves  in  the  South,  when  their  numbers  are  increased  many  times,  no  one 
will  pretend  that  thej^  ever  would  be  removed.  The  plan  is  to  keep  the  negroes  and 
such  whites  as  are  compelled  to  stay  among  them  down  at  the  starving  point  for  all  time. 
And  this  is  the  policy  of  the  most  moderate  and  conservative  of  the  Black  Republican 
party. 

There  are  others  of  them  who  say,  that  in  addition  to  this  the  fugitive  slave  law  must 
be  repealed  ;  slavery  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  forts  and  arsenals,  and 
wherever  the  United  States  has  exclusive  jurisdiction.  Others  of  them  contend  likewise 
that  the  slave-trade  between  the  States  must  be  abolished,  and  also  the  coastwise  trade 
between  the  States.  Other  classes  insist,  too,  that  slavery  should  be  attacked  in  the 
States  themselves.  The  largest  number  of  the  party,  however,  stand  on  the  same  ground 
of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Seward.)  He  says  that  slavery  has  no  “constitu¬ 
tional  guarantee”  winch  may  not  be  released  and  ought  not  to  be  relinquished ;  that 
“  circumstances  determine  possibilities;”  that  they  must  stand  ready  “  to  do  everything 
when  and  on  every  occasion  that  we  can;”  and  that  “whenever  the  public  mind  shall 
will  the  abolition  or  slavery,  the  way  will  be  open  for  it;”  that  “it  can  be  and  must  be 
abolished,  and  you  and  I  can  and  must  do  it.”  More  recently  he  said: 


“The  interest  of  the  white  race  demands  the  ultimate  emancipation  of  all  men.  Whether  that  con¬ 
summation  shall  be  allowed  to  take  effect,  with  needful  aud  wise  precautions  against  sudden  change  and 
disaster,  or  be  hurried  on  by  violence,  is  all  that  remains  for  you  to  decide.” 

He  also  declares  that  he  will  go  with  those  who  can  show  him  the  fastest  road  to  effect 
the  object.  Such  is  the  governing  principle  and  spirit  of  the  party,  to  use  all  the  power 
they  have,  or  can  by  any  possibility  acquire,  for  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

When  we  look  to  the  acts  of  this  party,  in  what  attitude  is  it  presented?  It  has  made 
the  whole  newspaper  press  subject  to  its  control  intensely  hostile  to  the  southern  section 


1 

of  the  Union.  Such  is  the  power  of  the  public  press  that  it  was  able  to  keep  England  and 
France  for  centuries  in  a  state  of  hatred  and  war  with  each  other.  Only  a  few  weeks 
since,  to  prevent  a  collision  between  the  two  countries,  the  Emperor  of  France  publicly 
checked  the  press  of  his  own  country ;  and  yet  the  fiercest  articles  in  the  French  journals 
were  moderate  in  comparison  with  the  general  tone  of  the  anti-slavery  press  towards  the 
South. 

This  party,  too,  sends  up  representatives  to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  from  time  to 
time,  who,  neglecting  all  the  public  business  of  the  country,  devote  themselves  to  pre¬ 
paring  and  reciting  denunciatory  harangues  against  the  southern  Slates.  Some  years  ago, 
an  intelligent  foreigner,  who  happened  to  hear  one  of  these  tirades  in  this  body,  expressed 
his  astonishment  at  the  quiet  manner  in  which  it  was  listened  to  by  southern  Senators. 
He  declared  that  if,  when  a  European  congress  had  met  for  business  purposes,  a  similar 
course  had  been  taken,  the  congress  would  at  once  have  been  broken  up.  In  our  State 
Legislatures,  such  things,  if  they  occur,  are  soon  stopped  by  persona)  collisions.  In  Con¬ 
gress,  out  of  deference  to  sectional  feelings,  there  is  no  attempt  to  check  such  men  as 
choose  to  embark  in  the  trade  of  heaping  all  manner  of  obloquy  ou  our  constituents. 

This  anti-slavery  party  has  torn  to  pieces  most  of  the  great  Christian  associations  of  the 
country;  in  spite  of  all  the  resistance  which  the  esprit  du  corps  and  Christian  charity 
prevailing  kmong  them  could  present.  It  has  stricken  down  every  public  man  in  the 
North  within  its  reach  who  has  shown  a  willingness  to  administer  the  Constitution  fairly 
in  relation  to  slavery. 

Whenever  it  has  obtained  the  control  of  the  Legislature,  it  has  caused  them  to  pass  the 
most  stringent  acts  for  the  nullification  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides 
for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves.  When,  many  years  ago,  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
threatened  to  nullify  a  law  of  Congress,  the  whole  Union  was  thrown  into  a  state  of  the 
greatest  excitement ;  but  so  common  have  these  proceedings  become  in  the  free  States, 
that  they  now  scarcely  excite  a  remark  when  passed. 

This  party,  too,  has  organized  societies,  and  Hired  agents  to  steal  and  carry  away  slaves 
from  the  southern  States;  and  when  a  gang  of  twenty  or  more  is  taken  off  at  a  time,  it  is 
made  a  matter  of  public  rejoicing;  and  their  papers  boast  of  the  perfection  of  the  under¬ 
ground  railroads,  and  of  the  millions  of  dollars’  worth  of  property  that  they  have  taken 
from  the  South. 

The  Federal  system,  instead  of  giving  us  protection,  only  affords  our  enemies  immunities 
and  facilities  for  attack.  Instead  of  being  a  shield,  the  Union  has  been  converted  into  a 
sword  to  stab  us  the  more  deeply. 

It  is  idle  for  Senators  to  say  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  their  States  are  not  in  favor 
of  these  unlawful  proceedings.  If  only  one  men  out  of  every  hundred  should  be  a  thief,  and 
the  other  ninety-nine  should  not  restrain  them,  by  legislation  or  otherwise,  this  minority 
of  thieves  would  be  able  to  steal  all  the  property  in  the  community.  If  societies  wer«V 
formed  in  Massachusetts  to  steal  property  in  Connecticut  or  New  York,  the  Legislature 
aud  people  of  the  State  would  doubtless  take  steps  to  restrain  them.  This  is  done  even 
with  reference  to  foreign  countries,  to  prevent  war  between  them.  American  citizens  are 
punished  for  going  into  Canada  to  disturb  the  British  community. 

If  societies  were  formed  in  Canada  for  a  similar  purpose,  and  were,  in  fact,  to  6teal  an 
equal  amount  of  property  from  New  England,  New  York,  Ohio,  and  other  northern  States, 
to  what  is  carried  away  by  the  Abolitionists  from  the  South,  we  should  be  involved  in  a 
war  with  Great  Britain  in  less  than  six  months.  What  would  be  the  feeling  of  those 
border  States,  if  Canadian  orators  should  boast  that  their  societies  had  robbed  them  of 
§45,000,000  worth  of  their  property,  just  as  they  now  say  they  hold  that  value  of  south¬ 
ern  runaway  slaves?  But  men  who  combine  to  plunder  the  people  of  the  southern  States, 
so  far  from  being  punished,  are,  in  many  of  the  free  States,  encouraged  by  the  legislation 
there. 

During  the  last  session,  the  Senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward)  introduced  a  propo¬ 
sition  for  additional  legislation  to  prevent  the  foreign  or  African  slave-trade  to  the  United 
States.  In  1808,  Congress  passed  laws  to  prohibit  that  trade,  and  since  that  Lime,  a 
period  of  more  than  fifty  years,  as  fur  as  I  know  or  have  reason  to  believe,  the  lav/  has 
been  violated  but  in  a  single  instance.  What  other  law  on  your  statute-book  has  been 
so  well  kept?  1  repeat,  what  law  has  Congress  ever  passed,  which  there  was  a  tempta¬ 
tion  to  violate,  that  has  been  so  well  observed?  That  it  was  not  broken  often,  is  not 
owing  to  any  want  of  opportunity.  Northern,  as  w.ell  as  foreign  ships,  have  been  en¬ 
gaged  in  the  tfade,  and  the  extent  of  the  southern  coast  affords  much  greater  facilities  for 
the  introduction  of  slaves  than  does  the  Island  of  Cuba,  into  which  large  numbers  are 
annually  carried.  This  law  has  not  been  broken,  simply  because  the  people  of  the  South 
were  not  willing  to  violate  it.  Now,  sir,  let  me  state  a  case  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Senate.  Suppose,  instead  of  what  has  actually  occurred,  the  State  of  Georgia,  where 
some  negroes  were  landed,  and  a  number  of  other  southern  States,  had  passed  the  strong¬ 
est  laws  which  could  be  devised  to  defeat  the  act  of  Congress  forbidding  the  African  slavo- 
trade,  and  encouraging  that  traffic  by  all  the  means  in  their  power;  suppose,  further,  that 


8 


southern  Senators,  and  other  prominent  public  men,  had,  in  their  speeches,  earnestly 
recommended  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Congress,  and  that  all  through  the  South  money 
was  subscribed  and  associations  formed  to  defeat  the  law,  and  provide  facilities  b}'  railroad 
or  otherwise  for  the  introduction  of  Africans,  and  mobs  gotten  up  to  overpower  the  United 
States  marshals,  could  not  a  hundred  negroes  have  been  imported  for  every  one  that  the 
Abolitionists  have  stolen?  Yes,  with  a  shore-line  of  more  than  ten  thousand  miles,  millions 
might  have  beeu  imported.  This  proceeding  would  have  been  a  violation  of  the  laws  of 
fhe  United  States,  just  like  that  which  has  occurred  with  reference  to  the  fugitive  slave 
law.  In  the  case  supposed,  however,  the  southern  men  would  have  had  greatly  the 
advantage  on  the  score  both  of  political  economy  and  morality.  They  might  have  said, 
with  truth,  that  the  negroes  imported  from  Africa  added  to  the  production  and  wealth  of 
the  United  States,  while  those  carried  North  by  the  Abolitionists  were  generally  converted 
into  idle  vagrants.  It  might  also  have  been  said  that  African  savages  were,  by  being 
brought  to  the  United  States,  partially  civilized,  and  not  only  made  more  intelligent  and 
moral,  but  also  christianized  in  large  numbers:  while  the  negroes  carried  to  the  North 
become  so  worthless  and  so  vicious,  that  many  of  the  States  there  were  seeking  to  exclude 
them  by  legislation,  as  communities  do  the  plague  and  other  contagious  disorders.  And 
the  Senator  from  New  York,  who  has  declared  that  it  is  a  religious  duty  of  the  people  of 
the  North  to  violate  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  urged  them,  instead  of  delivering  up  the 


runaway  negroes,  to  protect  and  defend  them  as  they  do  their  paternal  gods,  stands  up  in 
the  face  of  the  American  Senate  and  complains  of  violation  of  the  laws  against  the  African 
slave-trade!  Wag  there  ever  such  an  exhibition  ?  I  repeat,  was  the  like  ever  seen  since 
the  creation  of  the  world?  I  may 'use  strong  language,  but  truth  demands  it.  That 
Senator,  too,  has  fully  indorsed  the  incendiary  and  revolutionary  doctrines  of  the  Helper 
book,  as  a  large  majority  of  the  members  of  his  party  in  the  House  have  done. 

Such,  then,  Mr.  President,  are  the  views  of  this  party,  as  indicated  alike  by  its  declara¬ 
tions  and  its  acts.  Its  members  are  moving  on  with  an  accelerated  velocity.  While  the 
more  moderate  of  them  now  occupy  the  ground  of  the  Abolitionists  twenty  years  ago, 
most  of  them  are  far  in  advance  of  that  position.  Ought  we  to  stand  still  until  all  the 
States  are  as  thoroughly  abolitionized  as  Massachusetts  now  is?  If  not,  what  can  be 
done  to  arrest  the  mischief?  I  propose,  then,  seriously,  to  consider  this  question. 

In  toy  judgment  there  are  two  modes  in  which  it  can  and  ought  to  be  met.  The  first 
is  under  the  Constitution;  the  second  may  be  outside  of  it. 

If  abolitionism  be  a  popular  delusion,  can  it  not  be  dispelled  by  proper  efforts  ?  Truth 
can  overcome  error  ;  but  to  enable  it  to  do  so  it  must  be  properly  presented  to  the  human 
mind.  As  the  anti-slavery  party  have  acquired  their  present  ascendency  by  vigorous  and 
widely-extended  efforts,  if  they  are  to  be  overthrown,  it  is  only  by  decided  and  perse¬ 
vering  exertions  on  the  other  side.  There  are,  in  my  opinion,  sufficient  conservative  ele¬ 
ments  in  the  free  States  for  this  purpose,  if  they  can  only  be  properly  arrayed  in  opposi¬ 
tion.  It  is  necessary  that  the  discussion  should  be  widely  extended  and  also  directed  to 
the  merits  of  the  question  involved.  The  constitutional  argument  is  sufficient  for  the 
intelligent  and  honest;  but  it  it  be  said,  for  example  merely,  that  slavery,  as  existing  in 
the  southern  States,  is  a  great  wrong  and  a  great  evil,  vet  that  under  the  Constitution  the 
people  of  the  North  have  no  right  to  interfere  with  it,  the  party  so  defending  will  in  the 
end  lose  ground  ;  because  masses  of  men,  when  excited  by  real  or  imaginary  wrongs,  will 
in  time  break  over  mere  legal  restraints  which  they  regard  as  unjust  and  criminal.  They 
hold  that  “  where  there  is  a  will  there  is  a  way,”  and  will  find  some  mode  of  action.  But 
in  this  case  the  real  issue  is,  whether  or  not  the  negro  is  the  equal  of  the  white  man  phy¬ 
sically,  intellectually,  and  morally  ?  Though  usually  evaded  in  the  discussion,  this  is  the 
real  question  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  controversy.  If  the  people  of  the  north¬ 
ern  States  should  regard  the  negro  as  being  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  then  they  will 
continue  to  feel  a  sympathy  for  him  in  slavery,  and  can  be  excited  to  efforts  for  his  libera¬ 
tion.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  be  different  in  material  respects  from  the  white  man,  and 
also  inferior,  then  his  case  must  be  decided  on  its  own  merits  and  not  from  any  supposed 
'analogy  to  that  of  the  white  man.  It  is  not,  as  the  Abolitionists  in  their  silliness  assert, 
a  mere  question  of  color  or  prejudice  against  a  black  skin.  If  the  negro  were,  in  fact,  in 
all  other  respects  like  the  white  man,  his  blackness  would  have  been  of  no  more  conse¬ 
quence  than  the  difference  between  black  aml^j-ed  hair  or  light  and  dark  eyes.  The  feel¬ 
ing  against  him  grows  out  of  the  fact  that  he  is  in  all  respects  different  from  the  white 
man  and  inferior.  When  I  put  the  question  to  any  one  that  I  may  meet  here,  the  chances 
are  that  he  will  at  once  agree  with  me  in  private  conversation,  and  admit,  in  the  language 
used  some  time  ago  by  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  Trumbull,)  that  Omnipotence  has 
made  a  difference  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro ;  and  yet  it  is  this  very  opposite 
view  in  favor  of  negro  equality  which  gives  its  main  force  and  vitality  to  the  anti-slaver}’ 
movement.  When,  sir,  some  twelve  years  ago  I,  in  discussion,  threw  out  suggestions 
about  the  difference  of  races,  I  wa3  denounced  as  one  who  attributed  injustice  to  God 
Almighty  in  alleging  that  He  had  made  the  negroes  inferior.  Will  any  Senator  on  the 
other  side  of  this  Chamber  tell  me  why  it  is  that  Providence  brings  half  the  children  that 


9 


| 


are  born  in* New  England  into  the  world  with  constitutions  so  feeble  that  they  cannot 
live  until  they  are  twenty-one  years  of  age  ?  Or  will  they,  upon  their  views  of  Ilis  justice, 
explain  why  it  is  that,  in  the  same  family,  one  brother  is  provided  with  a  good  constitu¬ 
tion  and  strong  intellect,  while  a  second  has,  from  his  birth,  the  seeds  of  debility  and  in¬ 
curable  disease,  and  a  third  is  mentally  imbecile  or  perhaps  idiotic  ?  Would  the  injustice 
to  the  feeble  be  greater  if  they  were  black  men?  Are  we  to  refuse  to  believe  the  facts 
which  nature  constantly  presents  to  us,  because  they  do  not  harmonize  with  our  ideas  of 
the  justice  of  the  Creator?  The  Bible  itself  does  not  explain  to  us  why  it  is  that,  while 
ten  talents  are  given  to  one  man,  to  auother  but  a  single  talent  is  given.  For  the  ine¬ 
quality  of  the  negro,  Providence  is  responsible,  as  lie  is  for  the  entire  creation  which 
surrounds  us  When  human  laws  are  in  accordance  with  the  s}'stem  of  nature,  they  are 
wise;  but  if  in  opposition  to  it,  they  are  productive  only  of  mischief.  Tire  question  is 
significantly  asked,  in  the' Scripture,  “Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin  or  the  leopard 
his  spots?”  The  ancients  expressed  their  opinions  ou  this  subject  in  the  fable  which  rep¬ 
resented  a  black  man  as  having  been  killed  in  an  effort  to  wash  him  white. 

There  is  no  middle  ground  which  can  be  maintained  on  this  question.  If  tire  negro  be 
your  equal,  why  do  }’ou  exclude  him  from  your  parlors?  If  he  be  unequal,  your  whole 
argument  lias  in  fact  lost  its  foundation  and  fails.  If  it  once  be  admitted  that  the  negro 
is  inferior,  then  the  entire  edifice  of  Abolitionism  falls  .to  the  ground,  because  it  is  inti¬ 
mately  interwoven  with,  and  owes  its  vitality  to  the  opposite  belief.  When  pressed 
boldly  on  this  issue,  the  Abolitionists  of  late  are  trying  to  evade  it.  It  is  a  singular  and 
striking  fact,  that  when  this  issue  has  been  made  in  the  free  States  directly,  and  discussed 
before  the  people,  they  have  decided  the  point  against  the  negro.  Such  was  the  case  in 
Connecticut  and  New  York  on  the  question  of  suffrage,  and  also  in  the  States  of  Illinois 
and  Indiana  on  the  proposition  to  exclude  free  negroes  from  those  States.  In  the  contest, 
too,  in  Illinois,  in  the  year  185S,  which  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  the  distinguished. 
Senator  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  Douglas,)  this  was  the  leading  issue.  Had  that  Senator  con¬ 
tented  himself  with  simply  saying  that  slavery  was  an  evil  which  his  constituents  had  no 
constitutional  right  to  interfere  with,  I  do  not  believe  he  would  have  been  successful. 
But  be  understood  the  question,  went  at  once  into  the  merits  of  it,  and  carried  the  war 
into  the  enemy’s  ranks.  And  his  opponent  early  in  the  contest  began  to  cower  and  shrink 
from  his  blows,  and  tried  in  vain  to  evade  the  issue.  The  American  people  understand 
the  negro,  and  where  a  direct  appeal  is  made  to  them  they  truly  respond.  Though  the 
story  of  Dean  Swift,  in  which,  in  a  certain  country,  he  represents  the  horse  as  being 
greatly  superior  to  the  man,  is  an  ingenious  one,  yet  it  misleads  nobody  among  us,  because 
horses  are  so  common  that  their  qualities  are  understood.  So  the  romances  of  the  Aboli¬ 
tionists,  in  which  they  represent  the  negro  as  being  equal  and  even  superior  to  the  white 
man,  deceive  no  one  familiar  with  the  negro.  In  southern  Ohio,  for  example,  where  free 
negroes  are  quite  common,  there  is  little  or  no  Abolitionism;  while  in  the  northern  part, 
in  which  the  negro  is  seldom  seen,  anti-slavery  carries  everything  before  it.  European 
writers  know  little  or  nothing  of  the  negro,  and  hence  our  professors,  preachers,  and  other 
mere  book-men  of  the  North,  are  easily  led  astray  by  European  and  American  Abolition¬ 
ists  ;  but  the  people  of  the  country,  who  are  accustomed  to  look  at  facts,  are  not  so  readily 
imposed  on.  A  thorough  investigation  of  the  subject  shows  the  negro  to  be  inferior,  and 
lienee  the  principles  which  apply  to  white  men  cannot  be  extended  to  him.  No  farmer 
assumes  that  what  is  advantageous  to  the  hog,  for  example,  is  necessarily  so  to  the  sheep. 
To  determine,  therefore,  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  negro,  you  must  stud}-  the  negro 
himself.  Remember,  I  do  not  undertake  to  decide  how  or  when  the  negro  race  became 
different  from  the  white.  They  may,  as  many  men  of  science  contend,  have  been  created 
of  different  species,  or  they  may  have  been  rendered  different  since  their  creation,  by  an 
act  of  Providence.  Some  plausibly  say,  that  inasmuch  as  we  learn  from  the  Scripture 
that  a  certain  race  were  condemned  to  be  slaves  through  all  time,  the  negro  best  fulfills 
this  description,  and  hence  take  him  as  the  representative  of  that  class.  Without  attempt¬ 
ing  to  decide  who  is  right  as  to  theory,  I  think  it  clear  that  the  difference  between  the 
white  race  and  the  negro  is  as  great  ns  that  between  certain  different  species  of  animals 
of  the  same  genus,  that  approximate  eacli  other  in  their  structure  and  habits.  But  it  is 
said  :  Do  you  deny  the  manhood  of  the  negro?  No  more  than  I  should  deny  the  monkey' 
hood  of  an  ape  if  I  should  say  lie  is  not  a  baboon,  or  the  duckship  of  a  mallard  if  I  deny 
that  he  is  a  canvas-back  duck. 

Instead  of  indulging  in  vague  generalities  about  human  liberty  and  flie  rights  of  man, 
examine  the  nature  and  condition  of  the  negro  himself.  Four  thousand  years  ago,  in  the 
climate  best,  suited  to  his  constitution,  he  was  a  savage  and  a  slave.  In  his  own  country 
lie  stands  in  the  same  category  with  ivory,  dates,  and  other  tropical  productions,  if 
transferred,  as  merchandise,  to  a  foreigner,  he  is  usually  benefited  by  escaping  front  a 
master  who  will  eat  him  in  times  of  scarcity  to  one  who  treats  him  wit  h  more  lenity  and 
often  with  kindness.  Egypt  was  the  seat  of  the  earliest  civilization  known  to  man,  and 
the  Egyptians  held  the  negro  as  a  slave,  but  were  not  able  to  civilize  his  race  ;  though 


10 

subsequently,  in  contact  with  the  Carthagenians,  Romans,  and  Saracens,  he  still  remained 

a  savage  and  a  slave. 

In  the  West  Indies,  and  in  other  portions  of  America  where  they  form  independent 
communities,  notwithstanding  the  advantages  they  had  from  the  teachings  of  the  white 
men,  and  their  great  powers  of  imitation,  they  seem  to  be  returning  to  their  original 
savage  state.  When  we  turn  to  the  free  negroes  of  the  United  States,  what  shall  I  say  of 
them?  Why,  northern  as  well  as  southern  men,  and  even  Canadians,  characterize  them 
as  the  most  worthless  of  the  human  race.  Formerly  the  Abolitionists  ascribed  their 
degradation  to  the  want  of  political  and  social  privileges.  But  during  the  middle  ages, 
in  Europe,  the  Jews  were  not  only  without  political  privileges,  but  were,  as  a  class, 
odious  and  severely  persecuted,  yet  they  were,  nevertheless,  intelligent,  energetic,  and 
wealthy.  In  point  of  fact,  in  some  portions  of  the  northern  States,  the  negro  has  been 
made  a  pet  of,  and  but  for  his  native  inferiority,  must  have  thriven  and  even  become 
distinguished.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  four  million  negroes 
who  are  held  in  slavery  in  the  South,  when  their  condition  is  considered  with  reference 
to  their  physical  well-being  and  comfort,  their  productiveness  as  laborers, their  intelligence, 
morality,  and  religion,  stand  superior  to  any  other  portion  of  their  race.  While  the  free 
negroes  in  the  North,  with  fresh  accessions  from  abroad,  diminish  in  numbers,  the  slaves  of 
the  South  increase  as  rapidly  as  the  white  race,  and,  upon  the  whole,  perhaps,  adds  a3 
much  to  the  wealth  of  the  country  in  which  they  are  located  as  any  equal  number  of 
laborers  in  the  world.  * 

What  the  Abolitionists  have  to  do  is  to  find,  or  create,  a  negro  community  which  is 
superior  to  that  of  the  slaves  of  the  South.  When  they  shall  have  done  this,  they  will 
have  laid  some  grounds  for  their  appeals  in  behalf  of  emancipation.  Hitherto  they  have 
enlisted  the  sympathies  and  feelings  of  the  North  by  falsely  assuming  that  the  negro  and 
white  man  have  in  all  respects  the  same  nature.  Let  the  inequality  which  the  Creator 
has  made  be  recognized,  and  their  system  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  the  Abolitionists  sometimes  say  that,  even  if  it  be  true  that  the  negro  is  inferior, 
for  that  reason,  namely,  on  account  of  his  weakness,  he  ought  not  to  be  enslaved.  Does 
this  reasoning  apply  to  children  ?  The  average  of  human  life  is  less  than  forty  years,  and 
how  can  you  justify  depriving  human  beings  of  liberty  for  more  than  half  that  time?  If 
children  were  the  equals  of  adults,  it  would  be  wrong  to  control  them.  It  is  simply 
because  they  are  inferior  that  we  justify  their  subjection  to  the  will  of  others.  Upon 
these  principles  the  negro,  being,  as  compared  witii  the  white  man,  always  a  child,  is 
benefited  by  the  control  to  which  he  is  subjected. 

When  pressed  on  these  points  by  an  array  of  facts,  the  Abolitionists  fall  back  on  the 
opinions  of  Hr.  Jefferson  and  others  of  the  last  century.  But  since  their  day  the  sciences 
have  made  a  prodigious  advance,  and  in  all  that  relates  to  the  peculiarities  and  distinc¬ 
tions  that  exist  between  the  different  races  of  men,  there  has  been  the  greatest  progress 
of  any.  In  fact,  it  is  a  science  which  has  almost  grown  up  in  our  day,  and  it  has  made 
such  strides  as  to  have  taken  possession  of  the  intellect  of  America.  Already  there  are 
hundreds  who  have  adopted  the  doctrine  to  one  who  believed  it  ten  years  ago.  It  is 
only  necessary  for  the  true  men  to  take  it  up  boldly,  and  press  it  fyome,  and  the  Aboli¬ 
tionists  can  be  routed  throughout  the  North. 

The  shrewder  anti-slavery  men,  however,  seeing  that  they  cannot  make  longer  a  suc¬ 
cessful  fight  for  the  negro,  affirm  that  their  objection  to  slavery  is  not  on  his  account,  but 
for  tbe  sake  of  the  white  men,  and  that  they  and  the  South  are  injured  by  the  institution, 
and  that  our  people  are  for  that  reason  wanting  in  enterprise  and  industry.  To  that  ar¬ 
gument  I  have  this  to  say  in  reply.  Where,  Mr.  President,  in  all  history  was  it  known 
that  one  nation  was  so  strongly  tinder  the  influence  of  benevolence,  as  to  cause  it  to  make 
war  upon  another  merely  to  compel  the  nation  attacked  to  become  more  enterprising  and 
prosperous?  Who  has  invaded  Spain  or  Turkey  to  compel  the  Spaniards  or  Turks  to  be¬ 
come  more  industrious  and  thrifty?  Will  any  one  gravely  pretend  that  this  torrent  of 
fanaticism  in  the  North  has  no  other  origin  except  a  desire  to  compel  the  people  of  the 
South  to  be  more  industrious,  and  to  take  better  care  of  their  own  interest,  and  be  more 
attentive  to  their  own  business?  The  idea  is  preposterous.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that 
misrepresentations  on  these  points  have  contributed  to  strengthen  the  anti-slavery  party. 
But,  sir,  is  there  any  difficulty  in  making  a  complete  defence  on  this  point?  With  no 
wish,  Mr.  President,  to  wound  the  sensibilities  of  any  one,  or  to  claim  superiority  for  my 
section,  let  us,  nevertheless,  look  at  some  of  the  principal  facts.  One  of  the  best  tests  of 
the  prosperity  of  a  country  and  its  healthy  condition  is  the  progress  of  its  population. 
Compare  the  population  of  the  fifteen  slaveholding  States  with  that  of  all  the  free  States 
as  shown  by  the  census  of  1840  and  of  1850,  the  last  decade  ascertained.  If  wo  deduct 
from  both  sections  the  foreign  emigrant  population,  which  is  an  accidental  increment,  it 
will  be  found  that  the  slaveholding  States  have  increased  much  faster  in  population  than 
the  free  States. 

Again,  sir,  a  fair  estimate  of  the  wealth  of  the  two  sections  will  show  that  the  citizens 
of  the  southern  States  are  as  rich  per  head,  I  think  in  fact  richer  than  those  of  the  free 


11 


States.  Tt  was  also  shown  by  Mr.  Branch,  a  colleague  of  mine,  some  two  years  ago,  that 
of  the  old  Atlantic  States  the  slaveholding  had  more  miles  of  railroad  in  proportion  to 
their  white  population  than  the  free  States.  There  are  other  evidences  of  our  material 
wealth,  to  which  I  will  presently  advert.  On  the  score  of  morals,  it  may  be  said  that  we 
have  fewer  criminals  and  paupers,  and,  proportionately,  church  accommodations  for  a 
larger  number  of  members. 

It  is  said,  however,  that  any  one  who  merely  looks  at  the  two  sections  will  see  the  in¬ 
feriority  of  the  southern  s}Tstern.  But  you  must  remember  that  our  population  is  extended 
over  a  territory  of  nine  hundred  thousand  miles  in  extent,  while  many  of  the  northern 
States  have  a  dense  population.  It  is  the  tendency  of  an  agricultural  people,  with  an 
unlimited  area,  to  extend  itself  rapidly  at  first,  while  commerce  and  manufactures  con¬ 
centrate  population.  Tried  by  this  standard,  any  one  of  a  dozen  monarchies  which  I 
passed  through,  during  the  past  summer,  has  the  advantage  of  any  portion  of  the  Union. 
Even  in  Italy,  oppressed  as  it  ha3  been  forages,  in  its  agricultural  landscape,  can  bring  to 
shame  the  best  cultivated  State  of  New  England.  According  to  the  logic  of  the  Aboli¬ 
tionists,  these  States  ought  to  be  placed  under  the  dominion  of  the  House  of  Austria  or 
the  Pope  of  Rome.  The  entire  State  of  Massachusetts  is  not  larger  than  one  of  the  con¬ 
gressional  districts  of  North  Carolina.  Where  a  million  of  people  are  brought  within  a 
small  area,  the  eye  of  an  observer  rests  on  many  habitations  and  fields.  In  time,  the 
whole  Union,  if  filled  with  people,  may  be  superior  to  the  best  cultivated  parts  of  Eu¬ 
rope;  but  even  now,  the  inhabitants  of  sparsely-settled  districts  have  as  much  wealth 
and  comfort,  all  things  being  considered,  as  those  who  live  in  crowded  communities.  At 
no  period  of  our  history  have  the  southern  States  been  more  prosperous  than  at  present, 
and  even  during  the  commercial  pressure  of  1857  which  has  so  seriously  affected  the 
northern  States. 

I  do  not,  however,  propose,  Mr.  President,  to  enter  into  a  general  argument  on  these 
topics,  but  to  maintain  that  the  conservative  men  of  the  North  have  within  their  reach 
facts  enough  to  establish  two  propositions.  The  first  is,  that  the  negro,  in  the  condition 
of  slavery,  is  not  a  proper  object  for  sympathy,  and  is,  in  fact,  benefited  by  his  subjec¬ 
tion.  The  second  one  is,  that  the  white  race  are  not  injured  by  the  institution ;  that  the 
southern  States  constitute,  in  the  aggregate,  a  prosperous  community,  and  ought  not  to 
be  the  subject  of  denunciation  at  the  North.  Should  this  be  made  to  appear,  then,  what¬ 
ever  of  real  feeling  exists  against  us  will  be  diminished,  and,  in  that  event,  we  may  ex¬ 
pect  that  persons  who,  like  the  Senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Seward,)  patronize  aboli¬ 
tion  from  such  motives  as  induce  a  jockey  on  a  race-course  to  back  the  horse  that  he 
thinks  likely  to  win — all  such  persons,  1  say,  will  find  it  expedient  to  abandon  anti- 
slavery  agitation  as  a  trade.  To  effect  such  results,  however,  the  friends  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  in  the  North  must  make  up  their  minds  to  undergo  the  labor  of  a  thorough  canvass 
of  their  region  against  the  anti-slavery  men,  and  by  proper  publications  refute  their  mis¬ 
representations. 

The  Abolitionists  declaim  constantly  against  the  slave  ’power.  Why,  sir,  it  is  sixteen 
years  since  there  was  any  attempt  by  the  Democratic  party  to  nominate  a  citizen  of  the 
slaveholding  States  for  the  office  of  President;  and  for  the  last  ten  years,  in  the  conven¬ 
tions  of  all  parties,  the  contest  has  been  solely  among  northern  men.  In  fact,  during  that 
period  no  electoral  vote  has  been  given  in  a  slaveholding  State,  for  the  office  of  President, 
to  any  southern  man.  Our  only  object  lias  been  to  select  among  northern  gentlemen  one 
who  was  not  our  enemy.  The  men  chosen  have  been  assailed  by  our  opponents,  not  be¬ 
cause  they  were  neglectful  of  any  northern  interest,  but  simply  because  the}’  were  will¬ 
ing  to  do  us  equal  justice  with  the  other  section,  and  refused  to  exercise  the  powers  of  the 
common  Government  against  us. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  southern  States  should,  by  retaliatory  legislation,  prohibit 
the  sale  within  their  limits,  of  the  productions  of  those  of  the  northern  States  that  have 
failed  to  do  us  justice.  A3  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  been  interpreted, 
both  by  the  Federal  and  State  courts,  there  is  ample  power  to  effect  this  by  imposing  a 
tax  on  articles  after  they  have  been  imported  and  the  packages  broken;  in  other  words, 
on  retailers.  Two  objects  arc  expected  to  be  effected  by  this  system.  In  the  first  place, 
to  make  it  the  interest  of  the  northern  States  to  counteract  the  efforts  of  the  Abolil ionists ; 
and  secondly,  to  prepare  the  southern  States  for  a  separation,  if  they  should  find  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  take  such  a  step. 

I  have  often  thought,  Mr  President,  that  it  was  unfortunate  that  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  made  no  provision  for  the  expulsion  of  a  State.  If  the  Union  be  a  place  of 
misery,  then,  to  punish  refractory  members,  they  should  undoubtedly  bo  kept  in  it,  as 
criminals  are  detained  in  penitentiaries;  but  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  a  beneficial  and 
desirable  thing  to  remain  in  the  Union,  then  bad  members  ought  to  be  excluded  from  it. 
No  State,  in  ;ny  judgment,  has  a  right  to  enjoy  the  advantages  of  the  Union,  and  yet  re¬ 
fuse  to  submit  to  the  obligations  it  imposes.  Such  laws  of  Congress  ns  are  held  by  the 
courts  to  be  constitutional  ought  to  be  obeyed  by  all  the  States  that  share  t  he  advantages 
of  the  Union.  If,  for  example,  when  a  dozen  years  ago,  the  State  of  Massachusetts  passed 


12 


laws  to  nullify  the  act  for  the  recovery  of  fugitives,  if  she  had  been  expelled  from  the 
Union,  two  striking  effects  would  have  been  produced.  In  the  first  place,  the  consciences 
of  the  inhabitants  of  that  State  would  have  been  freed  from  all  responsibility  for  the  sin 
and  turpitude  of  slavery ;  and  secondly,  their  goods,  when  brought  into  the  United  States, 
would  have  been  taxed  as  those  of  other  foreigners  are.  The  impression  which  such  an 
occurrence  would  have  made  on  their  minds  and  those  of  the  country  generally,  might 
possibly  then  have  arrested  the  anti-slavery  movement  when  it  was  comparatively  feeble. 
In  the  present  condition  of  things,  such  a  course  would  not  be  practicable,  perhaps. 

If,  however,  Mr.  President,  this  hostile  movement  of  the  anti-slavery  party  cannot  be 
arrested  under  the  Constitution,  let  us  consider  the  second  remedy,  namely,  a  temporary 
or  permanent  separation  of  the  southern  from  the  northern  States. 

Senators  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  do  not  think  this  will  occur.  "When  Giddings 
and  others  proclaim  that  “the  South  cannot  be  kicked  out  of  the  Union,”  such  a  decla¬ 
ration  is  received  by  the  anti-slavery  party  of  the  country  with  evident  satisfaction,  and 
generally  with  applause.  You,  Senators,  and  your  supporters  do  not  believe  there  is 
danger  in  any  event,  because  prominent  slaveholders  and  men  of  wealth  occasionally  tell 
you  they  are  conservative,  and  that  the  southern  people  will  submit  to  any  treatment  you 
may  think  fit  to  impose.  But  you  should  remember  that  these  persons  are  uot  always 
the  readiest  to  volunteer  to  defend  the  country  in  time  of  war,  and  that  many  of  them 
dread  civil  commotions.  During  our  revolution  there  were  wealthy  tories  in  every  one 
of  the  colonies;  and  at  the  time  General  Washington  evacuated  the  city  of  New  York, 
he  was  urged  by  one  of  his  subordinate  officers,  a  northern  man,  to  burn  the  city,  for  the 
reason  that  two-thirds  of  the  property  to  be  destroyed  belonged  to  tories, 

You  do  not  believe,  also,  because  you  say  that  if  the  South  were  in  earnest,  it  would 
be  more  united,  and  would  not  send  up,  as  she  does  from  certain  districts,  members  of 
Congress  who  assist  you  in  party  movements,  and  in  answer  to  your  threats  proclaim  their 
love  of  the  Union. 

You  should  understand,  however,  that  the  constituencies  of  such  members  are  merely 
misled  as  to  the  purposes,  principles,  and  power  of  your  party  by  those  newspapers  on 
which  the}7  rely  for  information.  Let  therx  have  proper  knowledge  as  to  the  condition 
of  the  country  where  your  influence  prevails,  and  they  will  manifest  the  same  feeling  that 
the  rest  of  the  South  does.  Gradually  a  knowledge  of  your  movements  and  objects  is 
spreading  over  the  southern  States.  Two  occurrences  have  materially  contributed  to  un¬ 
mask  your  objects  and  disclose  the  dangers  which  threaten.  The  first  was  the  vote  which 
Mr.  Fillmore  received  in  1856.  When  it  was  seen  that  a  man  like  him,  of  avowed  anti¬ 
slavery  opinions,  merely  because  lie  showed  his  willingness  to  enforce  the  fugitive  slave 
law,  and  declared  his  purpose  to  give  to  the  South  the  benefits  of  the  Constitution,  was 
beaten  largely  in  every  free  State,  by  a  mere  adventurer  like  Fremont,  a  great  impression 
was  made  on  the  conservative  men  of  the  South.  They  began  to  realize  the  state  of 
feeling  in  the  North,  and  more  disuniouists  were  made  by  that  occurrence  than  perhaps 
any  one  which  preceded  it. 

The  second  incident  which  caused  even  a  much  stronger  impression  on  the  minds  of  the 
southern  people,  was  the  manner  iu  which  the  acts  of  John  Brown  were  received  in  the 
North.  Instead  of  the  indignation  and  abhorrence  which  the  atroeiousness  of  his  crimes 
ought  naturally  to  have  excited,  there  were  manifestations  of  admiration  and  sympathy. 
Large  meetings  were  held  to  express  these  feelings,  sermons  and  prayers  were  made  in  his 
behalf,  church  bells  tolled  and  cannon  fired,  and  more  significant  than  all  these,  were  the 
declarations  of  almost  the  entire  Republican  press,  that  his  punishment  would  strengthen 
the  anti  slavery  cause.  Yet  Senators  tell  us  that  these  things  were  done  because  of  the 
courage  Brown  exhibited.  But  our  people  think  you  are  mistaken.  Thougn  the  mere 
thief  may  be,  and  usually  is  a  coward,  yet  it  is  well  known  that  men  who  engage  in  rob¬ 
bery  or  piracy,  as  a  profession,  generally  possess  courage.  Criminals  have  been  executed 
frequently  in  New  England  who,  both  in  the  commission  of  their  crimes  and  in  their 
death,  manifested  as  much  courage  as  John  Brown,  and  yet  none  of  them  called  forth 
such  feelings  of  sympathy.  At  a  meeting  in  Boston,  where  thousands  were  assembled, 
when  Emerson,  a  literary  man  of  eminence,  proclaimed  that  Brown  had  made  “the  gal¬ 
lows  as  glorious  as  the  cross,”  he  wTas  rapturously  applauded.  At  the  large  meeting  at 
Natick,  where  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Wilson)  was  a  spectator,  the  principal 
orator,  Wright,  declared  that  the  people  of  the  North  look  upon  “Jesus  Christ  as  a  dead 
failure ,”  and  hereafter  will  rely  on  “John  Brown,  and  him  hanged.” 

In  the  southern  States  where  old-fashioned  Christian  notions  still  prevail,  it  would  be 
thought  right  to  beat,  such  blasphemers  even  out  of  a  church,  if  they  had  congregated 
there.  We  are  told  now  that  they  were  not  interrupted  because  the  people  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  are  law-abiding ,  and  in  favor  of  the  liberty  of  speech.  But  our  constituents  do 
not  believe  one  word  of  this,  because  they  know  that,  of  all  the  people  in  the  Union,  the 
inhabitants  of  Massachusetts  are  the  most  excitable  and  the  most  intolerant  and  overbear¬ 
ing.  They  know  that  men  who  dare  to  oppose  the  anti-slavery  party  there  are  persecuted 
with  intense  hatred;  that  mobs  can  be  gotten  up  on  the  smallest  occasions,  and  that  ten 


i 


thousand  men  can  he  assembled  on  the  shortest  notice  to  rescue  a  runaway  negro  from  the  t 
custody  of  a  United  {States  marshal. 

Our  people  know  that  these  tilings  could  not  have  occurred  unless  there  had  been  an 
intense  feeling  of  hostility  to  the  South,  and,  therefore,  strong  sympathy  with  our  assail¬ 
ants.  Is  not  this  the  reason  why  your  leading  editors  have  declared  that  the  punishment 
of  John  Brown  will  strengthen  the  anti-slavery  cause?  Such  is  the  construction  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  the  South  put  on  this  whole  matter,  and  hence  the  demonstrations  you  witness 
among  them. 

But  you  hold  that  the  South  is  unable  and  unwilling  to  resist  you;  and  the  Senator 
from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward)  lias  declared,  in  substance,  that  the  Union  is  never  to  be 
dissolved.  He  also  told  the  Senate  that  the  contest  between  the  free  and  slaveholding 
States  had  ended  by  the  former  winning  the  victory.  He  and  the  rest  of  you  expect  us 
in  the  future  to  submit  quietly  to  what  you  may  see  fit  to  older.  Had  the  British 
Parliament  believed  that  ihe  colonies  would  resist  their  tax  bills  our  Revolution  would 
not  have  occurred;  but  Lord  North  and  others  declared  that  the  clamor  in  America  came 
from  a  few  seditious  a  itators,  and  that  the  great  body  of  the  people  were  so  loyal  to  the 
Government  that  they  were  ready  to  submit  to  the  action  of  the  Parliament.  They 
affirmed  that  there  was  no  danger  of  resistance;  and,  least  of  all,  of  their  thinking  of  dis¬ 
solving  the  union  with  the  mother  country.  Our  ancestors  wisely  determined  that  the 
cannon  of  Great  Britain  were  less  dangerous  than  her  acts  of  Parliament. 

Let  us  look  at  this  matter  for  a  few  moments  calmly.  At  this  time  the  population  of 
the  South  is  nearly  thirteen  million,  of  which  more  than  eight  million  are  free  persons  and 
four  million  slaves.  At  the  beginning  of  our  Revolution  the  population  of  the  colonies, 
both  free  and  slave,  was  less  than  three  million.  The  slavekoiding  States  are  then  far 
more  than  four  tunes  as  strong  as  were  the  colonies  when  they  dissolved  the  union  with 
Great  Britain. 

Is  it  likely  that  after  having  been  independent  for  eighty  years,  our  people  are  less 
attached  to  their  rights?  But  many  of  your  Abolitionists  say  that  slaveholding  has  en¬ 
feebled  our  people,  and  rendered  them  so  spiritless  that  they  are  neither  willing  nor  able 
to  make  defence.  Edmund  Burke  thought  differently,  and  said  that  of  all  men  slave¬ 
holders  were  the  most  tenacious  of  their  rights,  and  defended  their  liberties  with  the 
highest  and  haughtiest  spirit.  I  do  not  refer  to  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  when  all  the 
States  were  slaveholding  ;  but  in  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain  the  southern  States  sent 
out  mure  men  than  the  northern,  and  it  has  never  yet,  as  far  as  I  have  heard,  been  pre¬ 
tended  that  Harrisou  and  Johnson,  Scott  and  Forsyth,  were  not  as  brave  as  those  who 
went  from  the  free  States  to  the  Canada  line,  or  that  Jackson  and  the  men  under  him  in 
the  Southwest,  did  not  exhibit  a  proper  courage.  To  the  war  with  Mexico,  though  much 
the  less  populous  section,  the  South  sent  nearly  twice  as  many  men  as  the  North.  A  lead¬ 
ing  Black  Republican  editor  says  that  one  regiment  from  New  York  would  be  able  to  con¬ 
quer  all  the  southern  States.  A  regiment  from  the  State  of  New  York  certainly  conducted 
itself  well  during  the  Mexican  war;  but  it  has  not,  1  think,  been  affirmed  that  it  behaved 
better  than  the  regiments  from  the  slaveholding  States.  If  you,  therefore,  think  that  one 
q£  your  regiments  is  able  to  subdue  the  South,  our  people  will  probably  differ  with  you 
in  opinion.  You  say  that  fear  of  the  slaves  will  prevent  any  resistance  to  you.  As  a 
sudden  movement  of  a  few  negroes,  stimulated  by  abolition  emissaries,  might  destroy  a 
family  or  two,  there  is  undoubtedly  apprehension  felt.  Fifty  persons,  however,  are  killed 
in  this  country  by  vicious  and  unmanageable  horses,  to  one  who  suffers  from  the  act  of  a 
rebellious  negro.  TJhere  is,  in  fact,  about  as  much  reason  to  apprehend  a( general  insur¬ 
rection  of  the  horses  as  of  the  slaves  of  the  South  when  left  to  themselves.  When,  during 
the  war  of  1S12,  the  British  armies  were  in  the  slaveholding  territory,  though  they  in¬ 
duced  a  number  of  slaves  to  join  them,  they  found  no  advantage  to  result  from  it,  and 
their  Government  paid  for  all  carried  off  at  the  close  of  the  war.  Though  the  Spartans 
and  Homans  were  the  greatest  slaveholders  in  the  world,  and  though,  too,  they  held  in 
the  most  rigid  servitude  men  of  their  own  color  and  race,  and  therefore  liable  to  rebel  in 
great  force,  yet  they  were  strong  enough  to  overthrow  all  their  enemies.  Jn  our  opinion, 
the  slaves  are  a  positive  element  of  strength,  because  they  add  to  the  production  of  the 
country,  while  the  white  race  can  furnish  soldiers  enough.  Every  man,  too,  among  us,  is 
accustomed  to  ride  and  to  carry  weapons  from  his  childhood. 

There  are,  however,  other  important  elements  to  be  taken  into  the  account.  During 
the  last  fiscal  year  the  exports  of  the  United  states,  exclusive  of  specie,  were  £278,000,000. 

Of  this  amount,  the  free  States  furnished,  exclusively,  £5,281,000,  the  slave  States 
$188,693,000,  and  the  two  sections  jointly,  also,  $84,41 7, 0U0.  Of  this  latter  sum  of 
$84,000,000,  the  slave  States  probably  furnished  one-third,  but  certainly  one-fourth.  A 
fourth  added  to  the  amount  exclusively  furnished  by  them,  makes  a  total  of  $210,000, 00O 
as  the  value  of  their  exports  to  foreign  countries.  They  also  exported  a  large  amount  to 
the  free  States.  New  England  alone  received  about  fitty  million  dollars’  worth  of  south¬ 
ern  productions;  and  to  the  rest  of  the  free  States  were  sent,  doubtless,  more.  The  entire 
exports  from  the  slaveholding  States  to  the  free  States,  and  to  foreign  countries  combined, 


14 


must  greatly  have  exceeded  three  hundred  million  dollars.  As  the  South  sells  this  much, 
it,  of  course,  can  afford  to  buy  alike  amount.  If,  therefore,  it  constituted  a  separate  con¬ 
federacy,  its  imports  would  exceed  three  hundred  million  dollars;  a  duty  of  twenty  per 
cent,  on  this  amount,  which  would  be  a  lower  rate  than  has  generally  been  paid  under 
our  tariffs  heretofore,  would  yield  a  revenue  of  $00,000,000.  More  than  fifty  million  of 
this  sum  could  well  be  spared  for  the  defence  of  our  section,  and  the  support  of  larger 
armies  and  navies  than  the  present  Government  has.  Though  it  may  seem  strange  to  you 
that  the  South  should  in  this  way  raise  as  large  a  revenue  as  the  whole  Union  has  ever 
done,  and  this  too,  with  a  lower  tariff,  you  must  remember  that  most  of  the  tariff  taxes 
the  South  pays  go,  in  fact,  in  the  shape  of  protection  to  those  northern  manufacturers  who 
threaten  us  with  negro  insurrections  and  subjugation.  Do  you  think  that  with  these 
prospects  before  our  people  they  are  ready  to  submit  unconditionally  to  you?  They  have 
the  strongest  feelings  of  contempt  for  the  avaracious  and  greedy,  the  canting  and  hypo¬ 
critical,  the  mean,  envious,  and  malicious  Abolitionists.  Little  as  they  may  think  of  the 
free  negro,  he  is,  in  their  judgment,  more  respectable  than  the  white  man  who  comes 
down  to  his  level;  and  with  all  the  world  to  choose  a  master  from,  your  negro  worshiper 
Would  be  their  last  choice. 

In  making  up  our  calculations,  we  must  also  look  to  the  other  side.  The  free  States 
have  a  population  of  seventeen  or  eighteen  million.  Though  this  is  considerably  more, 
numerically,  than  our  strength,  yet  it  is  much  less,  relatively,  than  was  the  population  of 
Great  Britain  in  1776.  I  have  no  doubt  that  your  people  are  courageous,  generally;  but 
the  best  and  bravest  of  them  are  in  the  Democratic  ranks;  and,  while  they  would  defend 
their  section,  if  attacked,  I  doubt  if  they  would  easily  be  induced  to  assail  us.  Many  of 
your ‘  Abolitionists  belong  to  the  “ peace  party,"  and  have  little  appetite  for  cold  steel, 
though  they  are  most  efficient  in  getting  up  popular  clamors,  and  are  formidable  at  the 
ballot  box.  It  is  also  true,  that  while  everything  the  South  needs  she  can  either  produce 
or  commonly  get  cheaper  in  Europe,  under  a  system  of  free  trade,  your  northeastern 
States  are  especially  dependent  on  the  South  for  its  productions  and  freights.  How  many 
of  your  manufacturers  and  mechanics  would  emigrate  to  the  South  to  avoid  the  payment 
of  tariff  taxes?  If  it  were  known  that  one-third  of  the  stores  in  New  York  could  not  be 
rented,  how  much  would  veal  property  fall,  then?  Deprived  of  southern  freights,  what 
would  be  the  loss  on  your  vast  shipping  interest?  1  give  you,  in  this  calculation,  the 
benefit  of  the  assumption  that  all  the  free  States  would  go  with  you.  In  fact,  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  Northwest  would  remain  connected  with  New  England,  still  less  that 
you  could  retain  California  and  Oregon. 

But  you,  Senators,  do  not  believe  the  South  will  resist.  Look  for  a  moment  at  the 
course  of  things  there.  In  those  sections  that  I  am  best  acquainted  with,  there  are  hun¬ 
dreds  of  disunionists  now  where  there  was  one  ten  years  ago.  By  disunionists,  I  mean 
men  who  would  prefer  to  see  the  Union  continue,  if  the  Constitution  were  fairly  admin¬ 
istered,  but  who  have  already  deliberately  come  to  the  conclusion  that  this  is  impossible, 
and  would  willingly  to  day  see  the  Union  dissolved.  In  some  of  the  States,  this  class 
constitutes  decided  majorities  now,  and  in  others  where  they  are  not,  the  majority  is  ready 
to  unite  with  them  upon  the  happening  of  some  further  causes.  In  my  judgment,  the 
election  of  the  presidential  candidate  of  the  Black  Republican  party  will  furnish  that 
cause.  The  principles  of  that  party,  as  announced  in  the  contest  of  1856,  were  such  that 
no  honorable  southern  man  could  possibly  belong  to  it.  I  see  that  the  general  committee 
in  their  call  properly  take  this  view,  and  only  extend  their  invitation  to  the  Opposition 
in  the  free  States.  What  precise  anti-slavery  platform  they  adopt  is  not  very  important, 
as  they  will  of  course  make  it  so  as  to  obtain  the  support  of  their  most  moderate  members, 
knowing  that  the  ultra  ones  will  go  with  them  any  how.  In  fact  the}’  know  that,  in  the 
language  of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Seward,)  “circumstances  determine  possi¬ 
bilities,”  and  that  lie  and  they  are  willing  “at  all  times”  to  do  all  they  can,  in  power  or 
out  of  it,  to  overthrow  slavery. 

It  is  said,  however,  that  we  ought  to  wait  for  some  overt  act;  and  the  Senator  from 
New  Hampshire  (Mr.  Hale)  the  other  day  declared  that  it  was  wrong  and  insolent  for 
southern!  men  to  talk  of  resisting  merely  because  they,  the  Republicans,  elected  men  to 
carry  out  “  their  views!"  That  Senator  is  very  wise,  and  knows  that,  when  a  man  wishes 
to  subdue  a  wild  horse,  he  treats  the  animal  witli  the  greatest  kindness  at  first,  and  com¬ 
mits  no  overt  act  on  him  until  he  is  well  and  securely  tied.  Suppose  that  your  candidate 
was  known  to  be  in  favor  of  making  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  by  which  the  United 
States  were  to  be  reannexed  as  colonies  to  that  country,  and  lie  had  been  elected  by  the 
majority  of  votes,  would  the  minority,  who  might  still  wish  to  preserve  their  independ¬ 
ence,  be  bound  to  wait  until  the  treaty  bad  been  actually  ratified,  and  British  armies 
had  taken  possession  of  the  country,  and  begun  to  maltreat  the  inhabitants?  In  the  pre¬ 
sent  case,  the  very  inauguration  of  your  candidate  makes  him  commander  of  the  Array 
and  Navy.  One  of  his  first  acts  would  be,  doubtless,  to  station  them  advantageously, 
while,  at" the  same  time,  he  could  carefully  remove  from  the  South  all  the  public  arms, 
lest  the  people  should  take  them  for  defence.  He  would  fill  the  southern  States  with 


Id 


postmasters,  and  other  officials,  whose  efforts  would  he  directed  to  dividing,  as  much  at 
possible,  the  people  of  the  South,  and  to  forming  connections  with  the  negroes.  Doubt¬ 
less*  some  such  policy  as  this  would  be  adopted  before  any  direct  blow  was  struck  as 
slavery  anywhere.  Shoulcrwe,  under  these  disadvantages,  begin  to  resist,  along  and 
blood}'  struggle,  like  that  of  our  Revolution,  might  be  the  consequence.  The  very  im¬ 
pression  that  Fremont  was  to  be  elected  produced  some  disturbances  among  the  slaves; 
and  with  a  Black  Republican  President  a  hundred  such  forays  as  John  Brown’s  might 
occur  in  a  single  year.  Though*  the  negroes  left  to  themselves  are  harmless,  yet,  when 
assisted  and  led  on  by  Europeans  in  St.  Domingo,  they  destroyed  the  white  inhabitants. 
As  the  Senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Sewakd)  holds  that  the  constitutional  guarantees  in 
favor  of  slavery,  being  “in  violation  of  the  divine  law,”  cannot  be  enforced,  and  “ought 
to  be  relinquished,”  he  would  be  on  the  side  of  the  negro. 

The  objections  are  not  personal  merely  to  thi.s  Senator,  but  apply  equally  to  any  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  party  elected  by  it.  It  lias,  in  fact,  been  suggested  that,  as  a  matter  of  pru¬ 
dence,  for  the  first  election  they  should  choose  a  southern  Free-Soiler.  Would  the  colo¬ 
nies  have  submitted  more  willingly  to  Benedict  Arnold  than  to  Lord  Cornwallis?  By 
way  of  palliation  it  has  been  said,  that  even  if  a  Black  Republican  should  be  elected,  lie 
would  probably  disappoint  his  party,  and  be  more  conservative  than  they  are  ;  and  that 
the  worst  he  would  do,  might  be  to  plunder  the  country,  by  legislation  or  otherwise. 
This,  however,  would  be  only  a  reprieve  to  us;  for  the  very  fact  of  his  election  on  such 
grounds,  arid  our  submission,  as  it  would  destroy  our  friends  in  the  North,  would  demo¬ 
ralize  and  degrade  our  own  people  and  render  them  incapable  of  resistance,  while  our 
enemie',  flushed  with  success,  would  select,  afterwards,  more  ultra  agents  to  carry  out 
their  u  views.”  No  other  “  overt  act ”  can  so  imperatively  demand  resistance  on  our  part, 
as  the  simple  election  of  their  candidate.  Their  organization  is  one  of  avowed  hostility, 
and  they  come  against  us  as  enemies ;  and  should  we  submit,  we  shall  be  in  the  condition 
of  an  army  which  surrenders  at  discretion,  and  can  only  expect  such  terms  as  the  hu¬ 
manity  of  the  conqueror  may  grant. 

But.  we  ere  asked  how  we  will  go  about  making  a  revolution  or  dissolving  the  Union  ? 
This  would  possibly  have  been  a  difficult  question  to  answer  during  the  first  year  of  our 
Revolution,  when  our  forefathers  were  avowedly  fighting  to  get  good  terms  of  reconcilia¬ 
tion  with  the  m'other  country.  Mr.  Jefferson  said  that  six  weeks  before  the  Declaration 
was  made,  a  majority  of  the  men  who  made  it  had  not  even  thought  of  independence. 
The  people  of  the  colonies,  though  they  had  not  authorized  anybody  to  make  it,  accepted 
it,  nevertheless,  as  a  fact. 

Who  anticipated  the  sudden  revolutions  that  overthrew  several  monarchies  in  France? 
Though  it  requires  skill  to  create  governments,  yet  men  often  destroy  them  very  unscien¬ 
tifically.  As  the  main  strength  of  all  governments  is  in  public  opinion,  so,  when  that  is 
forfeited,  they  often  seem  to  fall  easily  and  suddenly.  As  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  attachment  of  its  citizens,  is  the  strongest  in  the  world,  so,  when  that  is 
lost,  it  would  become  one  of  the  weakest. 

I  may  say,  however,  that  I  do  not  think  there  will  be  any  secession  of  the  southern 
members  of  Congress  from  this  Capitol.  It  has  always  struck  me  that  this  is  a  point  not 
to  be  voluntarily  surrendered  to  the  public  enemy.  If  lives  should  be  lost  here,  it  would 
seem  poetically  just  that  this  should  occur.  1  cannot  find  words  enough  to  express  my 
abhorrence  and  detestation  of  such  creatures  as  Garrison  and  Wendell  Phillips,  who  stimu¬ 
late  others  to  deeds  of  blood,  and,  at  the  same  time,  are  so  cowardly  that  they  avoid  all 
danger  themselves.  As  from  this  Capitol  so  much  has  gone  forth  to  inflame  the  public 
mind,  if  our  countrymen  are  to  be  involved  in  a  bloody  struggle,  I  trust  in  God  that  the 
first  fruits  of  the  collision  may  be  reaped  here.  While  it  is  due  to  justice  that  J  should 
speak  thus,  it  is  but  fair  to  myself  to  say,  that  I  do  not  remember  a  time  when  1  would 
have  been  willing  to  sacrifice  the  life  of  an  innocent  person  to  save  my  own  ;  find  1  have 
never  doubted  but  that  it  was  the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  give  his  life  cheerfully  to  pre¬ 
serve  the  union  of  these  States,  while  that  Union  was  founded  on  an  honest  observance 
of  the  Constitution.  Of  the  benefits  of  this  Confederacy  to  all  sections,  provided  justice 
be  done  in  the  administration  of  the  Government,  there  can  be  no  question. 

Independently  of  its  advantages  to  us  all,  there  are  reasons  why  it  should  be  maintain¬ 
ed.  Considerations  of  this  kind  were,  during  the  last  year,  brought  to  my  mind  from 
new  points  of  view,  and  with  added  force.  When,  last,  spring,  I  landed  in  England,  I 
found  that  country  agitated  with  questions  of  reform.  In  the  struggle  which  was  main¬ 
tained  on  both  sides  with  the  greatest  animation,  there  were  constant  references  to  the 
United  States;  and  the  force  of  our  example  was  stimulating  the  Liberals,  and  tending 
to  the  overthrow  of  aristocratic  and  monarchic  restrictions.  Our  institutions  and  our 
opinions  were  referred  to  only  to  be  applauded,  except  by  a  small  but  influential  aristo¬ 
cratic  clique.  That  oligarchy  cannot  forget  the  Revolution  of  July,  1770,  which  deprived 
Britain  of  this  magnificent  western  empire ;  and  it  sees,  with  even  bitterer  feedings,  its 
own  waning  power  and  vanishing  privileges  under  the  inspiriting  influences  of  our  pros¬ 
perity.  It,  however,  is  always  ready  to  take  by  the  hand  any  American  of  prominent 


16 


position  who  habitually  denounces  and  depreciates  bis  own  Government,  and  labors  for 
its  overthrow. 

In  this  connection,  I  remember  a  statement  made  to  me  bv  the  late  American  Minister 
at  Paris,  Mr.  Mason.  He  spoke  of  having  had  a  conversation  with  one,  whose  name  I  do 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  mention,  but  whose  influence  on  the  opinion  of  continental  Europe 
is  considei  able,  who  admitted  to  him  that  there  was  nothing  in  fact  wrong  in  our  negro 
slaver\’;  but  who,  nevertheless,  declared  that  if  the  Union  of  our  States  continued,  at  no 
distant  day  we  should  control  the  world;  and,  therefore,  as  an  European,  he  felt  it  to  be 
his  duty  to  press  anti-slavery  views,  as  the  only  chance  to  divide  us.  1  have  other  and 
many  reasons  to  know  that  the  monarchies  of  Europe,  threatened  with  downfall  from 
revolutionary  movements,  seek,  through  such  channels  as  they  control,  to  make  similar 
impressions.  A  hundred  times  wrns  the  question  asked  me,  “Will  you  divide  in  America?” 
But  never  once  was  the  inquiry  made  of  me,  “Will  slaver}’  be  abolished,  .will  your  coun¬ 
try  become  more  respectable  in  the  eyes  of  the  Abolitionists?”  The  middle  and  lower 
classes  of  England,  who  are  struggling  to  acquire  additional  privileges,  look  with  satisfac¬ 
tion  and  hope  to  our  progress.  France,  too,  is  imbued  with  American  ideas,  and,  not¬ 
withstanding  its  despotic  form  of  government,  is  one  of  the  most  democratic  countries  in 
Europe.  Italy  I  found  in  the  midst  of  revolutions,  and  its  monarchies  falling  down  with¬ 
out  even  a  day’s  notice,  and  its  inhabitants,  while  recalling  the  republican  .ideas  of  past 
ages,  looked  with  exultation  to  that  great  trans-Atlantic  Confederacy,  where  there  are 
no  kings  and  no  dukes ;  and  mojre  than  once,  while  passing  through  Tuscany  or  Lombardy, 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  people  reminded  me,  by  their  music  and  banners  and  shoutings,  of 
my  own  countrymen,  at  a  Fourth  of  July  celebration.  Germany,  the  receptacle  of  mil¬ 
lions  of  letters  from  this  side  of  the  water,  is  being  rapidly  educated,  and  is  already  far 
advanced  to  a  stable  free  system.  The  Swiss  and  the  Belgians  are  boasting  of  the  re¬ 


semblances  of  their  Governments  and  ours.  Everywhere,  too,  are  our  countrymen  dis¬ 


tinguished  and  recognized  for  their  intellectual  activity  and  energy.  The  people  abroad 
have,  perhaps,  exaggerated  ideas  of  our  immense  progress,  our  vast  power,  and  growing 
ascendency  in  the  civilized  world.  The  masses,  pressed  down  by  military  conscriptions 
and  inordinate  taxation,  look  with  pride  and  confidence  to  the  great  American  Republic, 
that  in  time  they  hope  w’ill  dominate  over  the  earth  and  break  the  power  of  its  kings. 
But. the  Senator  from  Few  York,  (Mr.  Sew’ard,)  and  those  who  act  with  him,  have  de¬ 
termined  that  these  hopes  shall  no  logger  be  cherished,  and  that  our  system  shall  fall,  to 
gratify  the  wishes  and  meet  the  views  of  the  British  Exeter  Hall  anti-slavery  society.  He 
holds  that  our  Government  has  hitherto  been  administered  in  “violation  of  the  divine 
law,”  and  that  our  former  institutions  must  give  way  to  the  “ higher  lair”  abolitionism, 
and  free  negroism.  This  is  the  issue  we  are  now’  called  upon  to  meet. 

Should  the  decision  of  the  ideas  of  November  be  adverse  to  the  fortunes  of  the  Republic, 
it  will  become  the  high  duty  of  the  South,  at  least,  to  protect  itself.  Northern  gentle¬ 
men,  I  believe,  with  great  unanimity  say  that  if  the  conditions  were  reversed,  they  would 
not  be  willing  to  subniitMor  a  moment;  and  many,  like  Mr.  Fillmore,  do  us  the  justice  to 
say  that  it  would  be  “  madness  or  folly  to  believe”  that  we  would  “  submit  to  be  governed 
by  such  a  Chief  Magistrate”  as  Fremont.  The  general  tone  of  feeling  in  the  South,  and 
the  rapid  formation  of  vigilance  committees  and  military  companies,  indicate  that  our 
people  have  not  forgotten  the  lessons  of  the  Revolution,  and  there  may  be  a  contest 
among  the  States  as  to  which  shall  be  most  prompt  to  resist. 

To  avoid  any  such  necessity,  our  people  are  disposed,  generally,  to  make  every  effort 
consistent  with  honor.  They  will,  with  great  unanimity,  go  into  battle  upon  the  old 
plai.for.ni  of  principles,  and.  waiving  ail  past  issues,  heartily  support  the  standard-bearer 
who  may  be  selected.  But,  the  fate  of  the  country  mainly  depends  upon  the  success 
which  may.  crown  the  efforts  of  those  brave  and  patriotict  men  in  the  North,  who,  in 
spite  of  the  odds  arrayed  against  them,  have  so  long  maintained  and  unequal  struggle 
against  the  anti-slavery  current.  They  fight  under  a  flag  which  waves  in  every  State  of 
the  Union.  Should  it  fall,  it  carries  with  it  an  older  and  a  still  more  honored  emblem — 
that  banner  under  which  Washington  marched  to  victory,  which  Jackson  maintained 
triumphantly,  and  which  lias  been  borne  gallantly  and  gloriously  over  every  sea.  1  have 
still  confidence  in  the  good  fortune  of  the  United  States,  and  in  view  of  the  many  provi¬ 
dential  occurrences  in  the  past,  still  anticipate  a  triumph  for  the  Republic. 


